BT 
715 
.  A53 
1820 


4*  0<^j5>3  s<*®rb>9  ^<gi.e%e,  <£■ 

f)  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY J 

©  (!) 


g,'^'~n~r~-j''>,;:’:i~~yiTp^>&:  -  -  iTi~^  ^ 

,jfr 3^>9^gg3>9*.^gs>ag^-g g»<gg^0 • 

BT  715  . A53  1820 
Andros,  Thomas,  1759-1845. 
An  essay  in  which  the 
doctrine  of  a  positive 


Princeton.  N.  J. 


i 


% 


> 

v* 


# 


) 


.  •  “ •  ;  v-  • ’  'v‘- 


waiDira  3 A;}b..  r  r.'-r-u 

Vt*  OT  K3H  iO  JJlV'.'ftltT  i  ' 

* 

..*  W16  *'h. ' , 

at 

" 

<*£  «|f  W  -IK  «15A 

,-.  •-■■rttf  -tn*T  •"  ->#  ZkW'i-  :  ■  **■•'-’ 

.  V  ,.*■;<■  ,.x  i  £  -t.;  •  *<*'•'  ’v  ■  ■■""  '  ■•'''  '  ' 

■-..rij..  t » .  •  .  '..:..^V  :  '  '  ■■  :  ;  ,:;  * 

jtAtsmnnt  a-.:.,  xa  *(”'••<  * 

*£*.».  •  JO  a^*OH* 


»*.  t8035tt^A  4  ■  -  ""v'  "  "*  ;- 


m 


ttSW* 


f  *■ 


ESSAY 


12?  WHICH 


OP  A 


POSITIVE  DIVINE  EFFICIENCY 

EXCITING  THE  WILL  OF  MEN  TO  SIN, 

As  held  by  some  modern ~  Writers, 
is 

CANDIDLY  DISCUSSED, 

AND  SHEWN  TO  BE 

3.  UNPHILOSOPHICAL.  2.  INCONSISTENT  WITH  TOE  PLAIN  AND 
OBVIOUS  SENSE  OF  THE  HOLT  SCRIPTURES,  AND  OF  COURSE  A 
DEPARTURE  FROM  THE  SIMPLICITY  OF  THE  GOSPEL;  AND 
3,  A  NOVEL  DOCTRINE,  UTTERLY  REPUGNANT 
TO  THE  FAITH  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN 
CHURCH  IN  ALL  PAST  AGES. 


BY  THOMAS  ANDROS,  A.  M. 

Pastor  of  the  Church  of  Christ  in  Berkley ,  Mass. 


Prove  all  things,  hold  fast  that  which  is  good . St.  Paul. 

Felix,  qui  potuit  rerum  cognoscere  causas.,.. .Virgil. 


BOSTON: 

Printed  for  samuel  t.  Armstrong, 

BY  CROCKER  &  BREWSTER, 

No.  50,  Cornhiil. 

JuJy,  1820, 


'  -tir 


1 


* 

;■?.  ■■  s  t:  Ifm-  >•  ••  ■'  ■'  . 


.  |  tntvif.^r  *****  b<*  «“,M"  |J 

. 


...  .  •  V  .  5*W>  bv>*  *** ,a 


?l  ..,-i  b  »■  .■■•-.  <*:w  ••’  -  ■!'  ";'s  1  ’  1;  W  •'  v;' 

. .  ?£\  «.  •<•  a  ..i,  •.  •  •  .  .  *.  i  •: 


■ 

*  "i“» 


ff 


’/■(>*  r:.)3d 


c 

:  ■;  ; '  ,  .  ,  .  .  » v?  ■  -■.•<-  m  *  ■  ■•  •-•  ■'*•  -  ■- 


CONTENTS, 


INTRODUCTION. 

Pugt 

Stating  some  circumstances,  which  drew*  the  author  reluctantly 
into  the  discU3siou,  - 

SECTION  I. 

'Hie  question  stated,  “Does  God  operate  directly  on  the  heart  of 
fallen  man,  and  excite  him  by  an  inward  positive  influence,  to 
yield  to  the  motives  and  allurements  to  sin,  which,  in  the  course 
of  divine  providence,  are  presented  to  his  view?”  -  1.1 

SECTION  II. 

The  standard  by  which  this,  and  all  other  questions  in  theology 
and  morals,  are  to  be  ultimately  decided,  i.  e.  the  obvious  sense 
of  the  word  of  God,  as  determined  by  the  common  laws  of 
exposition,  -------  24 

SECTION  III. 

Two  positions,  that  may  be  adjudged  as  the  main  pillars  of  the 
system  of  direct  efficiency,  considered:  viz.  1.  That  motive  in 
no  possible  case  can  be  the  cause  of  volition.  2.  That  those 
passages  of  Scripture  which  speak  of  a  divine  agency  in  hardening 
the  hearts  of  men,  &c.  are  to  be  understood  as  perfectly  par¬ 
allel  to,  and  as  expressive  of,  a  direct  influence,  as  those  which 
ascribe  the  production  of  holy  exercises  to  God,  -  -  S2 

SECTION  IV. 

In  which  it  is  shewn,  that  the  theory  under  examination  is 
contrary  to  analogy  and  sound  philosophy,  so  far  as  any  regard 
is  due  to  the  most  sober  and  cautious  reasonings  of  this  kind,  51 


CONTENTS. 


it 

SECTION  V. 

Texts  of  Scripture,  which  solemnly  warn  us  not  to  ascfibe  to 

•  \ 

God,  our  being  inwardly  excited  and  moved  to  impiety  and 
wickedness,  -  -  -  -  -  -  58 

SECTION  VI. 

Texts  whieh  positively  declare,  that  moral  evil  does  not  come 
from  Gcd,  -  -  -  -  -  6:1 

SECTION  VII. 

The  language  of  the  Scriptures,  in  which  all  holiness  in  saints  is 
ascribed  to  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  necessarily  excludes 
the  idea  of  a  direct  inward  divine  efficiency  in  the  production 
of  sinful  exercises,  -  -  -  -  -  G9 

SECTION  VIII. 

The  power  and  influence  which  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to  Satan, 
in  the  production  of  moral  evil,  utterly  irreconcilable,  upon 
just  and  sober  principles  of  interpretation,  to  this  modern 
notion  of  divine  efficiency,  - 

SECTION  IX. 

What  is  said  in  the  Scriptures  of  God’s  giving  up  sinners  to  their 
own  hearts’  lusts,  and  suffering  them  to  walk  in  their  own 
ways,  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  divine  efficiency,  under  con¬ 
sideration,  -  -  -  90 

SECTION  X. 

Tins  notion  of  divine  efficiency,  a  novel  doctrine,  unknown  to 
the  Church  of  God  iu  all  past  ages,  -  *  -  95 

CONCLUSION, . .  -  104 


APPENDIX. 

Containing  a  Discourse  on  Col.  ii,  8.  “Beware  lest  any  man 
spoil  you  through  Philosophy.”  - 


115 


INTRODUCTION. 


STATING  SOME  CIRCUMSTANCES,  WHICH  DREW  THE 
AUTHOR,  RELUCTANTLY,  INTO  THE  DISCUSSION. 

It  is  well  known  to  the  Christian  public,  that 
New  England,  for  more  than  half  a  century, 
has  been  famed  for  discussing  the  plainest 
evangelical  subjects,  in  a  deep,  abstruse,  meta¬ 
physical  way;  so  that  simple,  honest,  and  well 
informed  Christians,  have  oft  been  perplexed 
and  confounded  with  incomprehensible  mys¬ 
teries  and  difficulties,  where  none  seem  to 
have  been  apprehended  by  the  sacred  writers. 
In  various  instances,  new  phil  osophical  the¬ 
ories  have  been  invented,  and  attempted  to  be 
grafted  on  the  simple  and  precious  truths  of 

«  i.  1  .p  .  , 

the  Cos  pci,  as  very  important,  11  not  essential 
to  the  system;  and,  by  elaborate  discussions, 
and  excessive  refinements,  the  humble  spirit 

*1 


INTRODUCTION. 


vi 

and  life-giving  power  of  these  truths,  have 
been,  as  by  a  chemical  fire,  carried  off  by  subli¬ 
mation.  Hence  a  New  England  divine,  in  Eu¬ 
rope,  had  well  nigh  become  a  term  of  reproach. 
In  a  sarcastic  tone,  they  have  been  spoken  of  as 
acute  divines,  with  whom,  in  the  metaphysical 
palestra,  few  would  presume  to  contend.  One, 
who  it  seems  did  not  condemn  their  specula¬ 
tions  without  examination,  and  who  was  willing 
to  allow  them  credit  for  every  real  improve¬ 
ment  in  elucidating  evangelical  subjects,  thus 
writes  from  London: 

“The  religious  people  of  Old  England  look 
upon  me  as  a  New  England  divine,  which  is  to 
them  in  general  no  recommendation.’’ — Again 
he  says,  “I  mean  not  to  offend,  but  it  appears 
to  me,  that  the  pride  of  reasoning  and  confi¬ 
dent  speculation  is  as  much  the  danger  of  re¬ 
ligious  people  in  North  America,  as  antinomian 
laxity  and  selfishness,  is  of  those  in  Old  Eng¬ 
land.  Religion  came  from  God  in  full  perfec¬ 
tion,  and  can  never  be  improved,  though  it  may 
be  spoiled  by  philosophy:  and  the  nearer  our 
sentiments  and  expressions  accord  to  those  of 
the  holy  prophets  and  apostles,  the  purer  will 
be  our  religion.  The  pride  of  self-wisdom  is  as 
congenial  to  our  fallen  nature,  and  as  opposite 
to  Christianity,  as  any  other  kind  of  selfishness; 
“for  the  wisdom  of  this  world  is  foolishness 
>vith  God.”#  » 

Far  be  it  from  me  to  deny  that  respect  and 
honor,  which  is  due  to  many  of  the  writings  of 

*  Thcolog.  Mag.  for  Dee.  1798.  p.  421. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Vli 


New  England  divines.  I  have  been  as  much 
attached  to  these,  as  any  mere  human  compo¬ 
sitions.  I  have  read  them  with  much  delight, 
and,  as  I  hope,  real  profit.  The  nature  of 
original  sin;  the  nature  of  holiness;  the  highly 
important  distinction  between  natural  and  moral 
ability;  the  nature  of  the  atonement;  the  sin¬ 
fulness  and  inefficacy  of  unregenerate  doings,  &c. 
these  subjects  were  never  more  justly  stated, 
and  clearly  illustrated,  than  by  American  di¬ 
vines.  But  not  satisfied  with  refining  the  pure 
gold,  and  dissipating  some  mists  that  render  the 
rays  of  eternal  truth  less  effulgent  and  power¬ 
ful,  some  have  extended  their  speculations  on 
various  points  so  far,  as  to  savor  of  an  awful 
intrusion  into  the  unsearchable  depths  of  the 
ways  of  God,  and  thereby  to  endanger  the 
spiritual  interests  of  men.  Of  the  truth  of 
this  fact,  many  have  had  a  painful  sense,  who, 
still,  as  to  any  public  testimony  against  it,  have 
held  their  peace;  hoping  that  these  things 
would  never  be  attempted  to  be  imposed  upon 
our  belief,  as  important  articles  of  divinity. 

Dr.  Benedict,  of  Plainfield,  Con.  one  of  the 
most  excellent  of  men,  my  preceptor  in  divin¬ 
ity,  and  other  sciences;- to  whose  friendship  I 
am  greatly  indebted;  a  profound  scholar  and 
great  textuary,  assured  me,  he  would  not  have 
written  some  things  to  be  found  in  the  works 
of  a  few  New  England  divines,  for  his  right 
arm;  alluding  particular! v  to  the  point  which 
is  the  main  topic  of  this  Essay. 


YUl  INTBODUCTIOSf. 

Dr.  Griffin,  in  the  dedication  of  his  Park- 
Street  Lectures,  has  hinted  at  some  of  the 
speculations  of  this  new  divinity. 

“In  these  discourses,”  says  he,  “you  will  find 
no  reasonings  on  points  foreign  to  godliness — 
no  theories  about  the  origin  of  sin, — no  chal¬ 
lenge  for  a  conditional  consent  to  be  damned, — 
no  perplexing  speculations  about  taste  and  ex¬ 
ercise,  but  the  fundamental  and  practical 
truths  of  our  holy  religion,”  &c. — 

To  those,  to  which  there  is  here  an  allusion, 
we  might  add  many  more,  quite  as  foreign  to 
godliness.  But  among  them  all,  the  point  to 
be  examined  in  the  following  sheets  holds  a 
distinguished  place.  But  had  even  this  been 
suggested  only  as  a  mere  philosophical  prob¬ 
lem,  and  not  magnified  into  an  important  article 
of  Christianity,  it  might  have  been  left  to  rest 
undisturbed  in  the  works  of  philosophers,  as  a 
mere  lusus  of  their  speculating  temper. — More 
than  twenty  years  ago,  I  remember  to  have 
discussed  this  point  with  that  able  and  judicious 
divine,  the  Rev.  Samuel  Niles,  of  Abington. 
The  ground  that  I  then  attempted  to  maintain, 
was,  that  waving  all  questions  regarding  its 
influence  on  the  character  of  the  Deity  or 
moral  agency  of  man,  such  an  immediate  divine 
efficiency  in  the  excitement  of  men  to  sin,  was 
false  in  fact. — No  doubt  but  his  peculiar  views 
of  the  subject  descended  with  him  to  the 
grave.  And  nothing  has  yet  occurred  to  shake, 
but  much  to  confirm  my  belief.  But  what  I 
have  to  remark  is,  that  in  this  great  and  good 


INTRODUCTION. 


ix 

man,  whom  all  who  knew  him  must  venerate 
and  love,  I  never  discovered  the  least  disposi¬ 
tion  to  consider  it  any  way  essential  to  correct 
views  of  Christian  doctrine  and  piety.  But 
the  views  of  some  in  regard  to  this  subject, 
seem  now  to  be  widely  different  It  may  pos¬ 
sibly  originate  from  an  unhappy  jealous  sensi¬ 
bility  in  my  own  temper,  but  certainly  so  it  ap¬ 
pears  to  be.  This  newT  theory  sometimes  seems 
disposed  to  arrogate  to  itself  the  glory  of  some 
wonderful  improvements  in  divinity,  and  to  as¬ 
sign  those  a  low  place  in  the  church  of  God, 
as  to  wisdom  and  discernment,  who  do  not  ap¬ 
prehend  the  truth  and  importance  of  this  novel 
speculation;  for  novel  it  most  certainly  is. 
Well  do  I  remember  the  time,  when  Dr.  E.’s 
Sermon  on  Phil,  ii,  12,  was  handed  about  in 
manuscript;  and  it  was  then  said,  “the  world 
was  not  prepared  to  receive  the  new  divinity 
it  contained;  it  is  not  yet  time  to  publish  it.” 
But  this  is  not  all.  Had  I  not  a  strong  con¬ 
viction,  that  this  principle,  connected  with  some 
other  speculations  equally  unfavorable  to  pi¬ 
ety,  have  had  a  powerful  influence  to  prej¬ 
udice  multitudes  in  this  country  against  the 
Gospel;  that  it  has  aided  the  cause  of  infi¬ 
delity,  and  especially  that  of  Arminianism  and 
Unitarianism,  and  that  of  Sectarians  in  gen¬ 
eral.  Had  I  never  heard  candidates  perplexed 
with  this  question  before  ordaining  councils;  had 
it  never  been  affirmed  in  my  hearing,  that  this 
notion  of  divine  agency,  had  now  become  the 
line  of  demarcation  between  the  friends  of 
sound  doctrine,  and  those  who  march  under 


X 


INTRODUCTION. 


the  banner  of  its  foes;  that  those  who  ques¬ 
tion  the  truth  of  the  sentiment,  are  pleading 
the  cause  of  the  ungodly,  and  arming  them 
against  the  government,  universal  and  partic¬ 
ular  providence  of  God;  that  a  denial  of  it 
comes  but  little  short  of  Atheism;  at  least  it  can 
rise  but  little  above  Maniecheism;  that  the 
most  distinguished  and  pious  divines,  and  theo¬ 
logical  institutions,  who  do  not  make  it  a  prom¬ 
inent  feature  in  their  instructions,  are  very 
lax  in  their  principles,— nay,  had  it  never 
been  suggested,  that  the  silence  of  great  the¬ 
ologians,  who  do  not  adopt  the  theory,  is 
owing  to  this,  that  they  know  it  cannot  be  re¬ 
futed,  whether  tested  in  the  light  of  Philoso¬ 
phy  or  Scripture;  had  I  never  heard  any  such 
suggestions,  [  might  have  remained  silent.  And 
indeed  if  I  had,  still  I  might  have  deemed  it 
my  duty  to  have  held  my  peace;  for  neither 
do  any  other  divines,  or  divinity-schools,  need 
my  poor  efforts  to  vindicate  their  principles  or 
practice.  But  I  am  called  to  speak  in  self- 
defence.  A  few  thoughts  on  the  subject,  in  a 
small  volume  of  Sermons  lately  published  un¬ 
der  my  name,  have  brought  on  me  the  frowns 
of  some  i  greatly  esteem.  I  ought,  if  possible, 
to  satisfy  them,  that  I  have  a  Scripture  warrant 
for  what  I  have  advanced.  Nor  is  this  all:  the 

v  i  *■ 

theological  atmosphere  in  which  my  lot  is  cast, 
is  of  such  a  nature,  as  possibly  to  generate  the 
thought  in  a  preacher’s  own  charge,  that  if  he 
shrinks  back  from  this  grand  point  of  philoso¬ 
phy,  he  can  hardly  be  fit  to  instruct  in  any 
other  doctrine. 


INTRODUCTION". 


XL 


In  this  state  of  things,  I  have,  with  great  re¬ 
luctance,  been  induced  to  obtrude  my  thoughts 
on  the  Christian  public;  and  I  appeal  to  the 
Church  of  New  England,  whether  the  cause  I 
advocate  is  that  of  Christian  truth  and  simplic¬ 
ity,  or  not.  To  speak  with  the  independence 
and  confidence  of  a  Christian,  who  has  the  Bible 
for  his  guide,  I  claim  as  my  right.  But  if  I  speak 
m  an  angry  or  disrespectful  manner  of  any 
man,  let  me  bear  the  full  weight  of  the  cen¬ 
sure  I  may  deserve.  This  is  my  motto,  “But 
speaking  the  truth  in  love.”  Eph.  iv,  15.  And 
this  is  my  comment 

“Cursed  be  the  line,  how  well  soe’er  it  flow, 

That  tends  to  make  one  worthy  man  my  foe.” 

Being  confident  I  have  nothing  in  view,  but 
the  advancement  of  pure  evangelical  truth 
and  piety,  I  commit  what  I  have  written  to 
the  blessing  of  that  great  Being,  who  is  able, 
and  will  overrule  all  things  for  his  own  glory.  ' 
If  there  be  any,  who  have  so  completely 
surrendered  up  their  understanding,  and  even 
the  Bible,  to  human  systems,  as  to  deem  it,  if 
not  a  kind  of  sacrilege,  yet  proof  sufficient, 
that  he,  who  presumes  to  question  any  of  the 
positions  of  the  great  and  admired  authors  of 
them,  must  be  wrong  if  not  impious: — persons 
of  this  description  may  think  it  refutation 
enough  to  recollect  the  name  of  a  favorite 
writer;  we  do  not  expect  they  will  be  our 
readers.  But  of  all  others  who  may  conde¬ 
scend  to  examine  what  we  have  advanced,  we 


INTRODUCTION, 


•  • 

XU 

would  not  only  solicit  their  patience  and  candor, 
and  an  interest  in  their  prayers,  but  the  forgive¬ 
ness  of  all  they  may  discover  amiss,  in  matter 
or  manner. 

THE  AUTHOR, 


Berkley,  Nov,  23,  1819. 


SECTION 


* 


THE  QUESTION  STATED. 

Time  and  labor  are  utterly  lost  in  any  discussion, 
if  we  fail  of  that  perspicuity  which  is  necessary  to 
give  the  reader  a  clear  apprehension  of  the  point  in 
debate.  If,  through  mistake,  his  eye  is  fixed  upon 
one  position,  while  our  object  is  to  establish  another, 
we  may  greatly  injure  him,  by  seeming  to  prove, 
what  in  fact  is  false,  or  to  disprove,  what  in  our  own 
judgment  is  of  high  importance  to  be  believed;  or 
we  may  excite  his  disgust  towards  us  as  opposers  of 
a  doctrine,  which  rests  on  the  fullest  evidence,  and 
so  impair  his  Christian  fellowship  with  us,  and  put  it 
out  of  our  power  to  be  useful  to  him  in  future.  Had 
this  been  duly  attended  to, — had  persons  in  their 
religious  conferences  clearly  perceived  each  other’s 
meaning,  and  the  point  aimed  at,  a  great  deal  of 
useless  contention,  heat  and  bitterness,  would  have 
been  avoided. 

If  any  one  should  condescend  to  read  what  follows 
in  these  sheets,  I  beseech  him,  therefore,  here  to 
pause  and  reflect,  till  he  has  obtained  a  clear  idea  of 
the  question  before  us,  if  such  a  thing  be  possible 
from  my  manner  of  expression.  It  is  too  common 
a  thing,  for  persons  to  connect  with  one  question  a 
2 


14 


SECTION  I. 


great  many  others,  and  to  consider  a  writer  as  de¬ 
nying  all  those,  if  he  denies  this  one. — As  a  caution 
against  a  measure  fraught  with  so  much  injustice, 
we  would  here  mention  a  number  of  things,  which 
are  to  be  laid  out  of  the  present  discussion,  and 
which  it  is  not  our  design  to  prove  or  disprove. 

The  point  then  to  be  examined  is,  not,  whether 
God  has,  according  to  his  own  infinitely  wise  coun¬ 
sel,  predetermined  all  events,  that  come  to  pass; 
even  all  the  volitions,  actions,  and  characters  of  his 
creatures,  whether  good  or  evil.  This  is  conceded. 
It  is  not  whether  there  be  two  independent,  eternal, 
beings;  the?  one,  the  author  of  all  good,  the  other, 
the  author  of  all  evil.  A  person  must  be  hardly 
pressed  for  matter  of  cavil,  to  charge  this  upon  our 
system. 

The  question  is  not,  whether,  the  eternal  purpose 
of  God,  ensuring  the  existence  of  moral  evil,  reflects 
any  dishonor  upon  the  divine  character,  or  lessens 
the  demerit  of  sin.  Were  this  the  matter  in  debate 
we  should  take  the  negative. 

Nor  is  it,  whether  God  has  power,  consistently 
with  the  moral  freedom  of  man,  and  the  grounds  of 
praise  and  blame  in  regard  to  his  actions,  to  pro¬ 
duce  evil  volitions  in  his  heart,  by  an  immediate,  in¬ 
ward  positive  efficiency.  For  here  it  is  conceded, 
that,  if  the  holy  exercises,  which  God  produces  in 
saints  be  morally  good  and  praiseworthy,  we  see  not 
why  the  evil  exercises  of  sinners  would  not  be  crim¬ 
inal,  though  produced  in  the  same  way. 

Nor  is  the  question  about  the  manner,  how  moral 
evil  first  gained  existence  in  the  mind  of  angels  once 
perfectly  pure  and  blessed;  nor  how  moral  corrup¬ 
tion,  or  sinful  desires,  first  entered  into  the  heart  of 
the  primitive  parents  of  our  race,  who  were  orig¬ 
inally  formed  in  a  state  of  perfect  moral  rectitude. 

The  question  assumes  human  nature  in  its  state  of 
deep  and  awful  depravity,  and  may  be  thus  expres¬ 
sed,  ‘‘Does  God  operate  directly  on  the  heart  of 
fallen  man,  and  excite  him  by  an  inward  positive 


SECTION  I. 


15 


influence,  to  yield  to  the  motives  and  allurements  to 
sin,  which,  in  the  course  of  divine  Providence,  are 
presented  to  his  view?” 

The  advocates  of  this  doctrine,  affirm  with  us, 
(at  least  in  words,)  that  God  does  not  bring  into 
existence  the  evil  exercises  or  volitions  of  men  with¬ 
out  the  use  of  motives,  or  means  adapted;  but,  then, 
if  we  would  not  misunderstand  them,  it  must  care¬ 
fully  be  observed,  that  in  their  view7,  no  motives, 
means,  instruments,  or  second  causes,  have  any 
power  to  produce  volition,  without  this  inward  di¬ 
vine  influence.  The  mind  can  only  look  at  these 
motives;  it  cannot  move  a  step  to  choose  them, 
until  this  choice  is  excited  by  a  positive  direct  influ¬ 
ence  on  the  heart. 

The  justice  of  this  remark  will  appear  from  a 
few  citations.  “It  hence  appeareth,  that  there  is 
an  utter  impropriety  in  saying  that  the  mind  is  gov¬ 
erned  and  determined  by  motive.”  West  on  Moral 
Agency,  p.  61. 

“But  God  knew  that  no  external  means  wTould  he 
sufficient  of  themselves  to  form  his  (Pharoah’s) 
moral  character.  He  determined  to  operate  on  his 
heart,  itself,  and  cause  him  to  put  forth  certain  evil 
exercises  in  the  view  of  certain  external  motives.” 
Dr.  Emmons’s  Ser.  on  Exod.  ix,  16. 

“As  these  and  all  other  methods  to  account  for  the 
fall  of  Adam,  by  the  instrumentality  of  second  causes, 
are  insufficient  to  remove  the  difficulty,  it  seems  ne- 
cessary  to  have  recourse  to  divine  agency,  and  to 
suppose  that  God  wrought  in  Adam.  Satan  placed 
certain  motives  before  his  mind,  which  by  a  divine 
agency  took  hold  of  his  heart,  and  led  him  into  sin.” 
Ibid.  Ser.  on  Phil,  ii,  12. 

“An  object  presented  to  the  mind  is  a  motive  to 
choose,  but  it  is  the  immediate  agency  of  God  alone 
that  can  cause  the  mind  to  act  when  the  motive  is 
presented,” — “Not  that  God  does  not  work  by 
means,  hut  that  means  in  themselves  have  no  effi¬ 
cacy.”  W.  R.  Weeks’s  Nine  Sermons,  pp.  32,  42, 


SECTION  I. 


3  6 


What  do  these  writers  intend  by  "means  in  them- 
selves?”  Is  this  the  idea,  that  means  independently 
of  God  have  no  energy?  If  so,  who  will  contend 
with  them?  Do  they  suppose  that  any  man,  who 
believes  the  Bible,  would  advance  such  an  idea,  as 
that  God  ever  made  any  creature  to  exist  and  act 
independently  of  himself?  Or  do  they  mean  that 
God  has  never  imparted  to  created  agents,  instru¬ 
ments  or  second  causes,  an  influence,  energy,  or  ac¬ 
tivity,  sufficient,  under  his  upholding  and  all-controll¬ 
ing  Providence,  to  produce  any  effect,  or  at  least  any 
moral  effect;  or  that  it  is  impossible  he  should  give 
or  impart  any  such  energy  or  activity?  In  this  case 
1  would  ask  them,  how  they  came  by  this  knowl¬ 
edge,  and  how  they  prove  the  truth  of  such  a  specu¬ 
lation? 

In  regard  to  Adam’s  choice  of  the  forbidden  fruit, 
according  to  Dr.  Emmons,  God  knew  that  no  external 
means  would  be  sufficient.  But  how  did  the  Dr. 
discover  that  God  knew  this  in  Adam’s  or  Pharoah’s 
case?  In  relation  to  Adam’s  case  it  seems  by  God’s 
own  declaration,  that  he  knew  the  contrary;  for  he 
says  to  Satan,  a  dependent  agent,  an  Instrument, 
‘‘Because  thou  hast  done  this,”  and  denounces  a 
curse  upon  him  for  it,  and  says  not  one  word  about 
working  by  his  own  immediate  agency  on  Adam’s 
heart  itself. 

Do  not  the  Scriptures  undertake  to  account  for  the 
fall  of  Adam  by  the  instrumentality  of  second 
causes? 

And  does  not  Dr.  Emmons  reflect  equally  upon  the 
inspired  writers,  as  on  others,  when  he  says,  “These 
and  all  other  methods  to  account  for  it  by  the  instru¬ 
mentality  of  second  causes  are  insufficient. — It  seems 
necessary  to  suppose  God  wrought  in  Adam,”  i.  e. 
by  a  direct  influence  on  his  heart  he  moved  him  to 
his  first  act  of  rebellion.  But  how  came  the  Dr.  to 
discover  a  thing  which  none  of  the  inspired  writers 
ever  advanced? 

To  me  at  least,  there  is  something  awfully  pre- 
'  sumptuous  and  unbecoming  creatures,  who  are  of 


SECTION  I, 


IT 


yesterday  and  know  nothing,  to  talk  of  the  divine 
agency  and  the  inefficacy  of  means,  as  these  writers 
do.— -Are  not  the  ways  of  God  in  this  matter  an 
unfathomable  deep,  a  mystery  which  extends  infi¬ 
nitely  beyond  the  reach  of  our  capacities?  Do  we 
know  exactly  what  energies  God  may  impart  to 
second  causes?  How  far  he  works  by  instruments, 
or  his  own  immediate  agency.  Can  we  comprehend 
the  manner  of  the  dependence  of  rational  agents 
and  other  creatures,  on  the  Creator?  Do  we  know 
how  he  holds  them  all  under  his  absolute  control, 
and  brings  all  their  energies,  passions,  and  actions, 
to  unite  in  one  grasd  point,  the  accomplishment  of 
his  own  benevolent  purposes? 

Here  I  take  it  God  is  incomprehensible.  Christ 
says,  even  in  regard  to  a  blade  of  corn,  “It  grows 
up  thou  knowest  not  how.”  And  says  Solomon,  “As 
thou  knowest  not  what  is  the  way  of  the  spirit,  nor 
how  the  bones  do  grow  in  the  womb  of  her  that  is 
with  child;  even  so  thou  knowest  not  the  works  of 
God,  who  maketh  all.”  It  appears,  Mr.  Weeks  is 
rather  too  fast,  when  he  so  roundly  and  confidently 
asserts,  that  it  is  not  motive,  or  any  second  causes, 
but  the  immediate  agency  of  God  alone,  that  can 
cause  the  mind  to  act. 

When  these  writers  speak  of  God’s  working  by 
means,  there  is  great  danger  of  their  readers  being 
misguided.  According  to  their  theory,  means  are 
absolutely  nothing.  Motives  are  no  means  of  mov¬ 
ing  rational  creatures  to  act,  and  it  is  absurd  for 
them  to  talk  of  them  as  means;  for  a  means  utterly 
destitute  of  efficacy  and  adaptedness,  is  no  means  at 
all.  According  to  Mr.  Weeks,  a  motive  is  no  more 
the  cause  of  the  mind’s  choice  in  any  case,  than  the 
waving  of  my  hand  is  the  cause  of  the  sun’s  rising. 
And  who  would  not  say,  I  talked  absurdly,  if  !  were 
to  say  that  the  waving  of  my  hand  was  a  means  of 
the  sun’s  rising  this  morning?  A  nd  if  it  is  t he  im¬ 
mediate  agency  of  God  alone  that  causes  the  mind 
to  act,  then  motive  is  as  absurdly  said  to  be  a  means 


IS 


SECTION  t. 


here,  as  the  waving  my  hand  in  the  other  case.  To 
understand  the  scheme  aright,  we  must  then  con¬ 
ceive  of  it  as  affirming,  that  God  uses  means  to  exe¬ 
cute  his  decrees,  and  yet  he  uses  no  means  at  all. 
To  give  you  my  views  as  differing  from  this  theory. 
Suppose  God  creates  an  hand  of  mere  lifeless  clay. 
This  hand  he  moves  and  causes  to  appear  to  do  many 
things,  but  after  all,  there  is  absolutely  no  energy,  or 
efficiency  in  it,  to  do  any  thing.  God  by  an  immedi¬ 
ate  influence  or  agency  does  all.  This  if  I  can  com¬ 
prehend  it,  is  the  notion  of  means  entertained  by  the 
theory  we  oppose.  To  come  up  to  our  views,  you 
have  to  give  life,  intelligence,  the  power  of  choice, 
activity  to  this  hand,  if  it  be  an  accountable  agent, 
or  if  it  be  an  irrational  object,  you  must  give  to  it  its 
appropriate  energy,  whatever  it  be,  attraction,  mag¬ 
netism,  electricity,  instinct,  &c.  and  then  though  it 
be  equally  dependent  and  under  the  absolute  direction 
and  control  of  the  great  First  Cause,  yet  nothing 
further  is  necessary  to  its  producing  its  proper 
effects,  but  the  preservation  of  these  energies,  and 
affording  them  opportunity  and  excitement  to  action. 

To  guard  against  evasion  of  the  real  question,  and 
perplexing  the  subject  with  what  is  quite  foreign  to 
it,  we  add  another  remark.  The  advocates  of  this 
new  theory  pretend,  that  they  do  not  undertake  to 
decide,  in  what  manner  it  is,  God  operates  in  the 
production  of  moral  evil.  The  modus  operandi  they 
concede  is  incomprehensible. 

But  is  not  this  really  denying,  or  evading  the  mat¬ 
ter  in  debate?  The  manner  in  which  they  assert 
God  moves  the  wills  of  sinners  to  choose  evil,  is  the 
substance  of  all,  about  which  there  is  any  question. 

It  is  a  plain  declaration  of  the  Scriptures,  that 
God  hardens  the  heart,  blinds  the  mind,  sends  strong 
delusion,  &c.  But  this  is  to  produce  moral  evil,  and 
this  fact  we  readily  admit.  This  therefore  is  not 
the  point  at  issue.  But  it  lies  in  this.  One  side 
affirm  that  no  energy  imparted  to  second  causes, 
no  arrangement,  or  direction  and  application  of  mo 


SECTION  I. 


19 


lives  or  instruments,  is  sufficient  to  move  the  minds 
of  wicked  men  to  choose  evil,  or  to  excite  in  them 
unholy  volitions.  Over  and  above  all  power  and 
efficiency,  that  can  be  given  to  second  causes  and 
instruments,  a  direct  positive  divine  influence  must 
be  applied.  The  other  side  believe,  that  under  the 
infinitely  wise  and  powerful  arrangement  and  dis¬ 
posal  of  second  causes  and  instruments,  the  effect  is 
produced  without  any  such  positive  divine  efficien¬ 
cy. 

In  this  view  of  the  question,  it  is  impertinent  to 
say,  they  do  not  undertake  to  decide  how  God  moves 
the  wills  of  fallen  men  to  sin, — for  they  have  already 
declared  how  on  one  hand  he  does  not  do  it,  by  the 
instrumentality  of  second  causes,  and  on  the  other, 
that  he  does  it,  by  a  direct  operation  on  the  heart, 
causing  motives  and  second  causes  to  take  effect. — By 
not  deciding  as  to  the  mode  of  divine  operation  in 
the  production  of  moral  evil,  if  any  thing  after  this  is 
meant,  it  is  something  utterly  foreign  to  the  ques¬ 
tion,  viz.  that  the  manner  in  which  this  direct  and 
positive  agency  is  applied  to  the  heart,  is  what  they 
do  not  undertake  to  explain. 

In  regard  to  regeneration  it  is  one  question, 
whether  the  heart  be  renewed  by  an  immediate  divine 
influence,  producing  an  effect,  to  which  light  and  all 
other  means  are  incompetent;  and  quite  another 
question,  how  this  divine  influence  applies  its  power 
to  the  heart. 

So  in  regard  to  the  subject  in  hand.  This  repre¬ 
sents  the  saint  and  the  sinner  as  standing  precisely 
on  the  same  ground,  as  to  the  necessity  of  a  divine 
influence  to  produce  the  exercises  or  volitions,  which 
pertain  to  their  different  character®? 

Accordingly,  I  have  heard  the  question  thus  stated 
by  divines,  and  answered  in  the  affirmative.  ‘‘Does 
God  as  directly  move  persons  to  sin,  as  the  Holy 
Ghost  moves  saints  to  holy  exercises.”  The  fact, 
whether  God  does  thus  move  sinners,  is  the  'ques¬ 
tion,  and  not  the  manner  of  hi#  thus  moving  them. 


20 


SECTION  I. 


Here  then  you  have  a  view  of  the  point  to  be  ex¬ 
amined.  The  doctrine  we  shall  aim  to  establish,  is 
the  doctrine  of  the  divine  Providence,  in  regard  to 
the  existence  of  moral  evil,  as  heid  by  the  reformers, 
and  expressed  in  the  confessions  and  creeds  of  the 
orthodox  protestant  churches. 

This  doctrine  utterly  denies  the  existence  of  any 
such  positive  divine  agency  on  the  hearts  of  wicked 
men,  and  affirms,  that  since  man  comes  into  the 
world  agreeably  to  the  constitution  established  with 
Adam,  with  an  heart  fully  set  in  him  to  do  evil,  God 
does  no  more  than  uphold  him  in  this  nature,  and  for 
wise  and  good  purposes,  so  dispose  and  manage  the 
affairs  of  the  world,  that  motives,  temptations,  and 
excitements  to  sin,  fall  in  his  way,  and  that  by  these 
he  is  moved  to  all  the  evil  he  commits.  And  thus  by 
an  infinitely  powerful  and  wise  arrangement  and 
direction  of  second  causes,  God  turns  his  heart 
whithersoever  he  will,  and  governs  all  his  thoughts, 
passions  and  actions. 

This  is  the  Calvinistic  view  of  the  subject,  as  it 
stands  opposed  to  that  particular  article  of  New 
England  divinity  under  consideration;  and  is  thus 
expressed  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  by  the  Assem¬ 
bly  of  Divines  at  Westminster,  approved  by  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and 
adopted  by  the  Synod  of  the  Churches  of  New  Eng¬ 
land. — Vide  chap .  v.  Of  Providence  ‘‘The  Al¬ 
mighty  power,  unsearchable  wisdom,  and  infinite 
goodness  of  God,  so  far  manifest  themselves,  in  his 
Providence,  that  it  extendeth  itself  even  to  the  first 
fall,  and  all  other  sins  of  angels  and  men,  and  that 
not  by  a  bare  permission,  but  such  as  hath  joined 
with  it,  a  most  wise  and  powerful  bounding,  and 
otherwise  ordering,  and  governing  of  them,  in  a 
manifold  dispensation,  to  his  own  holy  ends:  yet  so 
as  the  sinfulness  thereof  proceeded  only  from  the 
creature  and  not  from  God,  who  being  most  holy 
and  righteous  neither  is  nor  can  be  the  author,  nor 
approver  of  sin.7* 


SECTION  I. 


Having  thus  stated  the  question,  the  discussion 
may  here  be  arrested,  by  what  may  be  deemed  a  very 
sage  inquiry,  and  sufficient  to  render  all  further  re¬ 
mark,  quite  impertinent  and  useless. — “Since  you 
grant,  that  moral  evil  in  every  instance  is  the  result 
of  a  divine  eternal  decree,  what  matter  is  it  how  it 
is  brought  into  existence? 

“If  it  was  the  will  of  God  it  should  exist,  it 
amounts  to  the  same  thing,  whether  it  be  produced 
by  a  direct  efficiency,  or  simply  by  the  instrumental¬ 
ity  of  second  causes.”  But  will  the  objector  abide 
the  consequences  of  such  a  principle?  May  not  in¬ 
finite  wisdom  and  goodness  be  concerned  in  the 
manner  of  executing  a  divine  decree  as  well  as  in 
the  decree  itself?  Is  there  no  choice  in  the  mode  of 
operation,  in  carrying  into  effect  a  pre-determined 
event? 

God  from  everlasting  determined,  that  the 
world  should  exist.  But  does  it  hence  follow',  that 
it  was  a  matter  of  perfect  indifference,  whether  this 
wrork  should  all  be  executed  by  one  instantaneous 
fiat,  or  go  on  progressively  for  six  days?  God  pre¬ 
determined  the  deliverance  of  his  chosen  people 
from  Egyptian  bondage,  but  did  it  hence  follow,  that 
it  was  a  matter  of  no  moment  whether  he  took  them 
all  out  of  Egypt  and  set  them  down  in  Canaan,  in 
the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  as  he  w  ill  change  the  bodies 
of  the  living  at  the  last  day,  or  whether  he  should 
have  proceeded  and  manifested  his  glory  in  their  re¬ 
demption  as  he  actually  did?  It  was  doubtless 
God’s  eternal  purpose,  that  Paul  should  go  and 
preach  at  Rome,  but  could  it  be  inferred  from  this 
decree  that  it  was  a  matter  of  utter  indifference, 
whether  he  w  as  carried  there  as  a  prisoner  and  ex¬ 
perienced  a  distressing  shipwreck,  or  whether  he 
went  by  land  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  liberty,  expe¬ 
riencing  no  opposition  or  sufferings? 

It  is  the  eternal  purpose  of  God,  that  the  elect 
shall  be  saved,  but  w  ill  you  hence  insist,  that  it  is 
no  matter  how  he  saves  them,  whether  by  an  act  of 


22 


SECTION  I. 


absolute  mercy,  or  by  a  Redeemer?  It  is  equally 
his  purpose,  that  all  who  are  saved  shall  be  justified, 
but  dare  you  affirm,  that  since  he  has  decreed  they 
shall  be  justified,  it  is  a  matter  of  trivial  consideration 
how  they  are  justified,  whether  by  works,  or  the 
propitiatory  death  of  a  Mediator?  Such  kind  of 
reasoning  as  this,  would  reduce  the  whole  system  of 
the  marvellous  grace  of  God  in  providing  a  Savior, 
to  a  thing  of  no  importance. 

Here  it  is  not  enough  to  know  God  has  decreed 
to  save,  but  we  must  know  how  he  executes  this 
decree  and  submit  to  it,  or  lose  eternal  life.  Is  it 
not  then  infinite  presumption  to  say,  since  God  has 
decreed  the  sinful  exercises  of  men,  it  is  matter  of 
no  importance,  whether  he  produces  them  by  a  direct 
efficiency,  or  simply  by  the  instrumentality  of  second 
causes?  God  may  see  it  to  be  infinitely  unwise  and 
unfit  for  him  to  produce  moral  evil  in  the  former 
way.  If  both  methods,  in  your  view  amount  to 
the  same  thing,  it  may  appear  far  otherwise  to  him, 
who  seeth  not  as  man  seeth. 

It  may  be  with  divine  truth  as  with  a  divergent 
line,  though  its  obliquity  be  at  first  scarcely  per¬ 
ceivable,  yet  if  you  pursue  such  a  line,  it  will  at  last 
recede  to  an  immense  distance,  and  produce  inter¬ 
esting  results.  The  difference  between  the  Trinita¬ 
rian  and  the  Unitarian,  begins  in  a  distinction  abso¬ 
lutely  incomprehensible.  One  affirms,  God  is  abso¬ 
lute  unity  in  his  essence.  The  other  affirms,  there 
is  a  distinction  of  persons  in  this  essence,  though 
to  define  it,  mocks  all  the  powers  of  the  human  intel¬ 
lect.  These  two  lines  by  some  are  supposed  to  be 
parallel,  or  if  divergent,  the  obliquity  is  small  in¬ 
deed;  but  pursue  them  and  what  is  the  result?  By 
the  decision  of  the  most  learned,  pious,  and  candid 
Trinitarian  writers,  Christianity  is  essentially  cor¬ 
rupted-  And  who  can  say  but  the  result  of  the  the¬ 
ory  we  oppose,  would  be  as  fatal,  were  it  as  openly, 
constantly,  and  zealously  preached  to  all  descriptions 
of  people,  as  the  divinity  of  Christ? 


SECTION  I. 


23 


The  pride  of  man  is  never  more  manifest  than 
when  it  thus  presumes  to  pronounce  one  method  of 
divine  procedure  as  fit  and  proper  for  Deity  as  an¬ 
other. 

You  may  say,  it  was  a  matter  of  perfect  indiffer¬ 
ence,  whether  the  battle  of  Waterloo  should  have 
commenced  two  seconds  earlier  or  later,  but  God 
might  see  that  results  of  boundless  moment  depended 
on  its  beginning  just  when  it  did.  So  in  regard  to 
the  question  before  us*  results  of  infinite  moment 
may  depend  on  sin  not  being  the  effect  of  a  direct 
influence  on  the  heart,  but  of  the  operation  of  in¬ 
struments  and  second  causes. 

“Know  thyself,  presume  not  God  to  scan.” 

But  if  you  establish  the  point  at  which  you  aim,  can 
you  state  any  particular  in  which  the  interests  of 
real  religion  will  be  promoted  by  it? 

This  question  will  be  briefly  considered  in  the  con¬ 
clusion,  after  we  have  set  before  the  reader  the  evi¬ 
dence  in  support  of  our  views. 

We  will  here  only  add,  if  the  Calvinistic  view  of 
this  subject,  differ  in  so  trifling  a  degree  from  the 
Hopkinsian,  why  do  those,  who  think  differently 
from  us,  make  so  great  a  matter  of  it, ^because  we 
cannot  adopt  their  theory?  And  why  all  this  zeal 
to  make  men  Hopkinsians  in  this  point?  Why  has 
a  new  and  numerous  edition  of  Mr.  Weeks’s  Nine 
Sermons  been  sent  forth,  as  if  some  vast  interest 
were  at  stake? 


SECTION  II 


THE  STANDARD,  BY  WHICH  THIS  AND  ALL  OTHER 
QUESTIONS  IN  THEOLOGY  AND  MORALS  ARE  TO  BE 
ULTIMATELY  DECIDED. 


All  rules  set  up  for  the  trying  of  such  questions 
may  be  reduced  to  two. 

One  is,  the  reasoning  faculty  of  man,  deducing 
conclusions,  principles,  rules,  arguments  and  mo¬ 
tives,  from  the  light  of  nature;  or  the  will,  the  jus¬ 
tice,  wisdom,  pow7er  and  goodness  of  God,  as  display¬ 
ed  in  his  works  of  Creation  and  Providence.  This 
is  denominated  the  religion  of  nature,  natural  theol¬ 
ogy,  moral  philosophy,  Ac. 

The  other  is  the  volume  of  revelation.  In  this 
God  has,  by  express  and  clear  declarations,  exhibited 
to  our  view,  what  we  are  to  believe  concerning  him, 
and  what  duty  he  requires  at  our  hands. 

Now  between  these  two  standards,  when  rightly 
applied,  there  never  can  be  any  opposition.  For  no 
just  inference  from  the  works  and  Providence  of 
God,  will  ever  be  found  to  be  inharmonious,  with 
the  conclusions  of  revelation. — But  through  the 
weakness  of  the  human  understanding,  and  perverse¬ 
ness  of  the  heart,  the  reasoning  faculty  of  man  may 
lead  him  into  conclusions  utterly  incompatible 
with  the  doctrines  of  revelation.  In  this  case,  as  the 
latter  is  unspeakably  more  clear  and  intelligible,  and 
contains  many  important  truths,  which  are  not  dedu° 


SECTION  II. 


25 


cible  from  (lie  works  of  nature,  it  must  be  resorted  to 
as  the  supreme  Rule,  and  all  the  conflicting  deci¬ 
sions  of  the  other,  however  just  they  may  seem,  must 
give  way  to  it. 

]f  the  understanding,  wisdom  and  goodness  of 
God  be  infinite,  there  can  be  no  appeal  from  his  plain 
and  positive  declaration.  He  can  neither  deceive,  be 
deceived,  or  mistaken.  “He  is  light,  and  in  him  is 
no  darkness  at  all.”  In  the  nature  of  things,  the 
revelation  he  has  given  us,  must  be  the  supreme  tri¬ 
bunal,  before  which  every  moral  question  must  be 
decided.  v 

It  is  the  rule,  by  which  all,  who  possess  it,  must 
be  tried  at  the  last  day.  Tins  authority  the  Holy 
Scriptures  now  claim  to  themselves. 

“All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God  and 
is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction, 
for  instruction  in  righteousness,  that  the  man  of  God 
may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  to  every  good 
work.”  2  Tim.  iii,  16.  “And  are  built  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ 
himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone.”  Eph.  ii,  20. 

The  first  of  these  standards  is  supreme  to  all  na¬ 
tions  and  individuals  destitute  of  revelation.  But  the 
moment  revelation  is  put  into  their  hands,  the  light 
of  nature  becomes  subordinate  or  is  absorbed  in  it. 
And  all  its  decisions  must  be  tested  by  it.  The 
most  celebrated  and  perfect  systems  of  theology  and 
morals,  adopted  by  ancient  wise  men,  could  not  stand 
this  test.  Hence  it  is  said,  “God  hath  made  foolish 
the  wisdom  of  this  world.” 

In  regard  to  revelation,  there  are  but  two  points, 
in  respect  to  which  the  reason  of  man  is  called  to 
exercise  itself.  The  first  is,  to  consider  the  proofs, 
by  which  its  claim  to  be  from  God,  is  supported. 
The  only  remaining  question  is,  what  is  the  meaning 
of  the  different  words,  sentences,  and  phrases,  in 
which  it  is  delivered.  And  in  deciding  this  point, 
the  great  query  is,  what  sense  of  any  particular 
word,  sentence  or  phrase,  is  to  be  taken  as  the  true 


2(i 


SECTION  If. 


sense.  Here  is  a  wide  field  opened  for  the  wild 
fancy,  distempered  taste,  and  unruly  passions  of 
men,  to  rove  abroad  in.  One  may  insist,  that  the 
inspired  writers  were  all  philosophers,  and  to  come 
at  the  meaning  of  their  writings,  we  must  with  met¬ 
aphysical  acuteness,  descend  far  below  the  surface. 
If  we  would  have  the  true,  it  must  be  some  far  fetch¬ 
ed,  deep  and  exquisite,  sense!  Would  men  of  such  ex¬ 
traordinary  powers  speak  in  the  language  of  the  vul¬ 
gar,  and  in  a  manner  level  to  the  capacity  of  chil¬ 
dren, — in  knowledge  and  learning.  This,  to  be 
sure,  has  not  been  the  glory  of  philosophers,  though 
it  may  be  of  him,  who  came  to  die  for  the  vulgar.  And 
as  he  died  for  them,  it  would  not  be  surprising  should 
lie  speak  in  a  language  adapted  to  their  capacities 
and  acquirements,  when  endeavoring  to  communicate 
to  them  the  words  of  eternal  life.  Another,  like 
some  ancient  commentators,  may  fancy  the  whole 
Bible  to  be  an  allegory.  And  having  obtained  the 
grand  clue  to  the  riddle,  every  word  and  sentence 
must  be  squared  by  this.  Another  looks  for  a  figure 
or  a  mystery  in  every  thing,  and  wanders  off,  in  an 
endless  aphelion  from  common  sense.  Another, 
avows,  that  there  are  no  figures  in  the  Bible;  every 
thing  is  to  be  taken  in  a  literal  sense;  and  becomes 
as  great  and  foolish  a  wanderer,  though  in  an  oppo¬ 
site  direction. 

But  the  only  true  answer  to  the  question,  is  this. 
The  plain,  most  natural,  and  obvious  sense,  which 
considering  the  nature  of  language,  and  the  scope  of 
the  writer,  would  most  readily  offer  itself  to  the  mind 
of  a  sober,  judicious  and  upright  inquirer  after  truth, 
is  the  true  sense. 

God  has  spoken  to  men  in  their  own  language.  If 
he  had  spoken  in  a  dialect  perfectly  superior  and  un¬ 
known  to  men,  it  would  have  been  no  revelation  at 
all.  It  is  only  in  a  language  that  they  understand, 
and  in  writings  subject  to  the  same  general  rules  of 
interpretation,  as  other  compositions  in  that  lan¬ 
guage,  a  revelation  can  be  made.  If  an  entire  new 


SECTION  II. 


Z7 


set  of  rules  or  principles  of  interpretation  are  to  be 
adopted  in  explaining  the  terms  and  phrases  in  which 
a* revelation  is  conceived,  it  can  he  no  revelation  to 
us,  till  by  another  revelation  we  are  told  what  these 
are.  If  then  it  he  admitted  that  the  Bible  is  a  revela¬ 
tion  of  the  will  of  God  to  men,  it  must  also  he  ad¬ 
mitted,  that  we  are  to  explain  the  grammatical  sense 
and  real  meaning  of  it,  as  we  do  that  of  any  other 
book  written  in  the  same  dialect;  and  the  most  natur¬ 
al,  easy,  and  obvious  sense,  considering  the  nature  of 
human  language  and  the  scope  of  the  writer,  must 
be  the  true.  It  is  by  the  Scriptures,  explained  by 
this  rule,  the  question  under  consideration  is  to  he 
decided.  If  the  justice  of  this  rule  of  interpreta¬ 
tion  be  not  admitted,  then  divine  revelation  must  be 
given  up,  as  too  uncertain,  vague  and  equivocal,  to 
determine  any  thing.  It  is  well  known  that  by  la¬ 
bored  criticisms,  strained  interpretations,  and  far 
fetched  senses,  the  most  opposite  and  absurd  systems 
may  be  supported  by  the  Scriptures. 

But  the  justice  of  the  above  rule  of  interpretation 
is  capable  of  the  most  convincing  moral  demonstra¬ 
tion. 

This  point  is  handled  in  a  very  able  and  judicious 
manner,  by  a  writer  in  the  Panoplist,  to  which  I 
would  refer  the  reader,  as  a  piece,  w  hich  ought  al¬ 
ways  to  lie  upon  the  same  shelf  with  his  Bible,  and  to 
be  often  reviewed.* 

When  we  assert,  that  the  Scriptures,  interpreted 
agreeably  to  this  grand  rule,  are  the  supreme  stan¬ 
dard  to  which  reason  itself  is  to  bow7,  our  meaning 
is  this: — Not,  that  there  is  any  thing  in  religion  or 
in  the  doctrines  and  principles  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
that  is  in  itself  absurd,  or  contrary  to  the  truth  and 
fitness  of  things,  or  to  the  conclusions  of  the  Infinite 
Reason. — -Not,  that  we  are  prohibited  employing  t’ie 
faculty  of  reason  in  studying  them,  and  searching  af¬ 
ter  the  great  doctrines,  duties  and  discoveries,  which 


*  Pan.  Nos.  5  and  6,  for  1816. 


£8 


SECTION  II. 


they  contain.  We  are  certainly  no  farther  religious, 
than  our  belief  and  practice  are  reasonable.  The 
religion  of  revelation  is,  in  all  its  parts,  a  reasona¬ 
ble  belief,  “a  reasonable  service.” 

Our  idea  is  this,  that  no  researches  or  conclu¬ 
sions  of  reason,  however  they  may  be  dignified  by 
the  name  of  philosophy,  and  struck  out  by  men  of 
the  greatest  celebrity,  for  genius  and  learning;  and 
however  seemingly  compact  and  demonstrably  just  the 
various  intermediate  steps  of  the  argument  may  be; 
and  however  clearly  and  irrefutably  they  seem  to 
follow  from  their  premises;  are  to  he  admitted  as 
true,  if  they  contradict  the  obvious  meaning  of 
Scripture.  Though  the  fallacy  of  the  reasoning  can¬ 
not  he  discovered  by  the  most  acute  human  investi¬ 
gation,  yet  it  must  he  allowed,  there  is  a  fallacy  some¬ 
where  in  it,  and  it  must  he  rejected  as  falsehood. 
If  the  rule  be  not  thus  extended,  if  one  single  deduc¬ 
tion  of  reason  he  allowed  to  stand  as  true,  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  Scriptures,  then  human  reason  is  exalted, 
and  the  word  of  God  is  put  down,  as  the  supreme 
standard  or  test  of  truth. 

To  add  weight  to  our  views  in  regard  to  this  point, 
permit  us  to  avail  ourselves  of  the  statement  of  Mr. 
Faber,  whose  learning  and  ingenuity  are  well  known, 
by  his  writings  in  the  Christian  world. 

“Admit  no  conclusion  in  any  system,”  says  he,  “to 
be  valid,  unless  the  conclusion  itself,  as  well  as  the 
thesis  from  which  it  is  deduced,  be  sufficiently  set 
forth  in  Holy  Scripture.  We  must  prove  all  things  by 
Scripture  and  hold  fast  that  which  is  good;  regard¬ 
less,  of  the  even  opposite  conclusions,  which  might 
seem  by  a  train  of  abstract  reasonings  to  be  legiti¬ 
mately  deduced  from  our  several  articles  of  belief  By 
adopting  such  a  plan  we  may  forfeit  the  honor  and 
glory  of  a  systematic  conrinnity;  but  if  men  con¬ 
tinue  to  dispute  and  draw  out  fine  trains  of  metaphys¬ 
ical  reasonings,  even  to  the  very  end  of  the  world,  it 
requires  not  the  gift  of  prophecy,  to  foretel  that  they 


SECTION  II. 


w 

will  be  just  as  wise  at  the  close,  as  they  were  at  the 
commencement.” 

I  am  no  enemy  to  reasoning  in  religion;  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  at  every  step.  But  when  it  plainly  militates 
against  the  obvious  sense  of  Scripture,  however 
much  it  be  gloried  in  by  men,  and  however  infallible 
they  may  deem  their  conclusions,  it  must  without  hes¬ 
itation  be  rejected  on  the  self-evident  principle,  that 
the  foolishness  of  God  is  wiser  than  men. 

This  reasoning  pride  sticks  close  to  our  nature. 
We  are  loth  to  stoop  to  be  told  our  duty  in  plain 
words  and  like  obedient  servants  go  and  do  it.  We 
wish  to  have  the  credit  of  making  ourselves  wise. 
Hence  many  infidels,  incorporate  with  their  writings 
line  sayings  derived  from  the  Scriptures, as  their  own, 
while  they  despise  that  blessed  volume. 

So  the  professed  Christian  preacher,  may  ascend 
the  desk,  to  teach  and  make  his  people  wise  by  his 
mighty  strength  of  reasoning,  and  only  quote  the 
Scriptures  as  a  kind  of  collateral  aid.  He  may  not 
come  forward,  armed  in  power  and  argument,  bor¬ 
rowed  from  the  book  of  God;  nor  may  he  think  a 
clear  and  apposite  text  of  Scripture  to  be  the  most 
overwhelming  reasoning. 

“What  Matthew  says  or  Mark,  the  proof  but  small, 

What  Lock  or  Clark  asserts,  good  scripture  all.” 

More  fully  to  explain  what  we  mean,  let  us  now 
exemplify  this  great  rule  of  interpretation  by  apply¬ 
ing  it  to  a  few’  plain  cases. 

According  to  the  reasoning  of  Dr.  Clark  in  de¬ 
monstrating  the  being  and  attributes  of  God,  one 
great  argument  for  the  unity  of  his  nature  is,  that 
the  necessity  by  which  he  exists,  must  be  infinitely 
extended  and  uniformly  the  same.  It  is  not  possible 
to  conceive,  there  should  be  any  cause  either  to  limit 
or  divide  this  necessity  of  nature.  He  must  there¬ 
fore  be  one,  simple,  infinite,  absolutely  united  essence. 
JNow  this  reasoning  seems  to  exclude  all  possibility 


30 


SECTION  II. 


of  a  distinction  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  and  no 
mere  human  reason  can  refute  the  argument. 

But  this  argument  contradicts  the  Scriptures,  and 
is  therefore  to  be  rejected  as  false.  Their  testimony, 
that  God  exists  in  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  must 
be  admitted,  in  spite  of  the  most  plausible  deduc¬ 
tions  of  human  reason. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  some,  that  sinful  and  holy  affec¬ 
tions  cannot  co-exist  in  the  human  mind.  During  the 
prevalence  of  an  holy  exercise,  there  is  no  possible 
emotion  of  the  soul  towards  that,  which  is  evil. 

But  although  the  reasoning  by  which  this  theory 
seems  to  be  defended,  does  not  admit  of  being  over¬ 
thrown  by  an  opposite  course  of  abstract  arguments; 
yet  we  reduce  it  to  absurdity  and  falsehood  by  a 
very  easy  process;  it  is  contrary  to  what  is  writ¬ 
ten. 

“1  find  then  a  law,  that  when  I  would  do  good,  evil 
is  present  with  me.  But  I  see  another  law  in  my 
members  warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,”  &c. 
Rom.  vii,  21,  23.  “Whosoever  is  born  of  God  doth  not 
commit  sin,  for  his  seed  remaineth  in  him,  and  lie 
cannot  sin,  because  he  is  born  of  God.” 

The  Aristotelian  philosophy  strongly  maintains 
the  eternal  existence  of  matter,  and  the  absolute  im¬ 
possibility  of  creation.  But  one  text  of  Scripture  lev¬ 
els  all  the  arguments  of  its  self-confident  advocates 
in  the  dust. — “In  the  beginning  God  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth.”  Gen.  i,  1. 

It  is  a  common  tiling  for  the  most  renowned  Chris¬ 
tian  philosophers,  and  the  great  Bishop  Butler  among 
the  rest,  to  insist  upon  it,  that  human  nature  is  not, 
previous  to  regeneration,  divested  of  all  right  affec¬ 
tion.  But  a  very  few  words  from  St.  Paul  proves 
them  all  to  be  in  a  great  mistake.  “There  is  none 
that  doeth  good,  no  not  one.”  “There  is  no  fear  of 
God  before  their  eyes.”  Rom.  iii,  12,  18. 

If  it  should  be  objected  that  revelation  cannot  be  a 
standard  by  which  to  test  abstract  philosophical  the¬ 
ories,  because  it  is  manifest,  that  it  is  itself  nothing 


SECTION  II. 


31 


more  than  a  system  of  doctrines  and  rules  of  a  prac¬ 
tical  nature,  founded  on  some  antecedent  principles  of 
which  the  inspired  writers  give  no  account,  but  have 
left  them  to  the  decision  of  mere  human  sagacity 
and  penetration,  we  would  reply  in  words  to  be  found 
in  one  of  Mr.  Foster’s  Essays. 

<lif  it  be  said  for  some  parts  of  these  dim  specula¬ 
tions, that  although  Christianity  comes  forward  as  the 
practical  dispensation  of  truth,  yet  there  must  be  in 
remote  abstraction  behind  it, some  grand  ultimate  ele¬ 
mentary  truths,  of  which  this  dispensation  does  not 
inform  us,  or  which  it  reduces  from  that  pure  recon¬ 
dite  into  a  more  palpable  and  popular  form;  I  answer 
and  what  did  the  poet,  or  the  master  of  the  poet 
and  the  song  (alluding  to  Pope  and  Bollingbroke) 
know  about  these  truths  and  how  did  they  come  by 
their  information.” 

Let  the  friends  of  revelation  beware  of  what  comes 
from  this  remote  abstraction  behind  Christianity,  or 
of  all  theories,  which  cannot  be  defended  without 
charging  the  apostles  or  other  inspired  writers,  of 
being  ignorant,  unlettered  men,  sometimes  speak¬ 
ing  not  according  to  sound  philosophy  or  the  truth 
and  reality  of  things,  but  according  to  vulgar 
notions  and  prejudices. 

This  section  shall  be  closed  in  the  words  of  Dr. 
Chalmers.  “Hold  up  your  face  my  brethren,  for  the 
truth  and  simplicity  of  the  Bible.  It  is  the  right  in¬ 
strument  to  be  handled  in  the  great  work  of  calling 
an  human  soul  out  of  darkness  into  marvellous  light. 
Stand  firm  and  secure  on  the  impregnable  principle, 
that  this  is  the  word  of  God,  and  that  all  taste,  and 
imagination,  and  science,  must  give  way  before  its 
overwhelming  authority.” 


SECTION  III. 


TWO  POSITIONS,  THAT  MAY  BE  ADJUDGED  AS 
THE  MAIN  PILLARS  OF  THE  SYSTEM  OF  DIRECT  EF¬ 
FICIENCY  CONSIDERED;  Viz.  1.  THAT  MOTIVE  IN  NO 
POSSIBLE  CASE  CAN  BE  THE  CAUSE  OF  VOLITION. 
2.  THAT  THOSE  PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE  WHICH 
SPEAK  OF  A  DIVINE  AGENCY  IN  HARDENING  THE 
HEARTS  OF  MEN,  &c.  ARE  TO  BE  UNDERSTOOD  AS 
PERFECTLY  PARALLEL  TO,  AND  AS  EXPRESSIVE  OF, 
A  DIRECT  INFLUENCE,  AS  THOSE  WHICH  ASCRIBE 
THE  PRODUCTION  OF  HOLY  EXERCISES  TO  GOD. 


POSITION  I. 

In  his  Essay  on  Moral  Agency,  Dr.  Stephen  West 
says,  “It  hence  appeareth  that  there  is  an  utter  im¬ 
propriety  in  saying,  that  the  mind  is  governed  or 
determined  by  motive.”  p.  61. 

Now  although  we  do  not  in  the  present  discussion 
mean  to  refer  any  thing  ultimately  to  the  decision  of 
mere  abstract  reason,  but  to  test  every  thing  by  the 
lively  oracles  of  God,  as  the  only  authority  on  which 
we  can  fully  rely,  yet  as  this  position  lies  so  much  in 
our  way,  and  is  the  vital  principle,  the  heart  and 
life,  of  the  doctrine  we  oppose,  it  may  not  be  amiss 
to  canvass  it  for  a  moment  as  a  boasted  metaphysi¬ 
cal  dogma.  If  it  was  a  real  fact  that  motives  do 
never  determine,  move  or  excite,  the  mind  to  action, 
then  indeed  the  philosophy  we  oppose  must  stand 


SECTION  III. 


33 


good.  For  if  these  do  not  determine  the  will,  we 
shall  not  surely  contend  that  it  is  governed  by  any 
other  second  cause;  and  if  not  by  a  second  cause, 
then,  without  all  controversy,  it  must  be  by  a  direct 
act  of  the  great  First  Cause.  Hut  what  ideas  do  phi¬ 
losophers  entertain  of  the  terms  cause  and  effect?  As 
they  relate  to  that  succession  of  operations,  events 
and  changes,  which  we  behold  in  the  works  of  the 
great  Creator,  they  designate  nothing  more  than  an 
established  law,  or  uniform  mode  of  divine  opera¬ 
tion:  i.  e.  when  God  causes  frost  to  exist  to  a  cer¬ 
tain  degree,  he  causes  water  to  congeal,  and  this  is 
ail  the  power  philosophers  will  allow  second  causes 
to  possess.  Now  although  we  believe  that  God,  who 
could  create  matter  or  mind  distinct  from  his  own 
essence,  could  also  create,  impart,  or  cause  to  exist, 
energies,  activities  and  efficiencies,  equally  distinct 
from  his  own;  and  that  hence,  although  there  can  be  no 
independent  created  object  or  energy,  yet  cause  and 
effect,  in  relation  to  the  works  of  God,  signify  more 
than  these  philosophers  will  allow.  Hut  admitting 
for  the  sake  of  argument  this  notion  to  be  perfectly 
correct,  then  nothing  can  he  more  just  than  to  affirm, 
that  motives  have  as  much  power  or  efficiency,  as 
the  cause  of  volition,  or  governing  and  determining 
the  mind,  as  it  is  possible  any  second  causes  should 
have.  For  no  law  or  mode  of  divine  operation  is 
more  constant  and  certain,  than  that  of  volition  fol-  - 
lowing  the  presentation  of  motives  to  the  mind.  And 
to  justify  this  remark,  we  need  do  no  more  than  to 
cite  Dr.  Stephen  West’s  own  words  against  himself. 
In  the  beginning  of  the  third  section  he  does  indeed 
say,  ‘‘It  hence  appeareth  that  there  is  an  utter  im¬ 
propriety  in  saying,  that  the  mind  is  governed  or  de¬ 
termined  by  motive.”  But  w  hat  does  he  say  before 
he  closes  the  section?  We  affirm  that  he  gives  to  mo¬ 
tive  all  the  causality  we  contend  for;  yea,  all,  and 
more  than  all  the  influence  some  modern  philoso¬ 
phers  allow  any  second  cause  to  possess.  His  words 
are  these,  “And  so  strong  and  insuperable  are  these 


34 


SECTION  III. 


mutual  tendencies  of  motives  and  the  will  of  moral 
beings  to  eacli  other;  and  so  inseparable  the  connex¬ 
ion  between  the  influence  of  the  former  and  the  ex¬ 
ertions  of  the  latter,  that  no  object  suited  to  the  state, 
temper  and  disposition  of  the  mind,  ever  cometli  into 
its  view,  without  being  actually  chosen;  such  an  ob¬ 
ject  is  no  sooner  apprehended  and  perceived  by  the 
mind  than  it  is  relished  and  chosen;  and  such  was 
the  antecedent  state  and  disposition  of  the  mind,  and 
such  the  adaptedness  of  the  object  with  its  qualities, 
to  that  particular  state  and  temper  of  mind,  as  to  lay 
a  foundation  of  choice,  and  be  a  ground  of  the  cer¬ 
tainty  of  it,  whenever  the  object  shall  come  within 
the  view  of  the  mind.” 

1.  I  would  here  ask  Mr.  W.  It.  Weeks,  whether 
this  is  compatible  with  his  assertion,  that  it  is  the 
immediate  agency  of  God  alone  that  moves  the  mind 
to  act? 

I  would  in  the  next  place  observe,  this  is  all  we  ask. 
We  certainly  shall  not  pretend,  that  motives  are  the 
cause  of  volition  or  the  mind's  choice,  in  any  higher 
sense, 

3.  If  “so  strong  and  insuperable  are  these  mutual 
tendencies  of  motives  and  the  w  ill  of  moral  beings  to 
each  other;  and  so  inseparable  the  connexion  be¬ 
tween  the  influence  of  the  former  and  the  exertions  of 
the  latter,  that  no  object  suited  to  the  state,  temper 
or  the  disposition  of  the  mind,  ever  cometh  into  its 
view  without  being  actually  chosen;”  I  would  query, 
with  what  propriety,  after  this  concession,  could  this 
writer  affirm,  “that  there  is  an  utter  impropriety  in 
saying,  that  the  mind  is  governed  or  determined  by 
motive?”  It  is  hard  to  see  the  justice  of  this  remark, 
unless  he  meant  to  deny  the  existence  and  operation 
of  all  second  causes  whatever. — For  no  second  cause 
can  have  greater  power  to  produce  effects,  than  what 
he  here  ascribes  to  motives. 

4.  After  thus  ascribing  to  motives  all  the  causality 
that  any  second  cause  in  nature  can  be  supposed  to 
possess,  could  it  be  proper  for  him  to  represent  it  as  a 


SECTION  III. 


35 


point  undecided,  what  the  cause  of  volition,  or  of  the 
mind’s  being  excited  to  choose  is?  His  words  are, 
«Wh  at  the  cause  of  volition  is,  may,  perhaps,  he  a 
subject  worthy  of  attention,  and  fit  to  employ  the 
talents  of  inquisitive,  contemplative  minds?”  There 
can  be  no  doubt  remaining  to  solve,  as  to  what  the 
first  cause  of  all  things,  and  so  of  volition,  is.  Ail 
contemplative  minds  know  this  to  be  God.  And  if 
we  can  say  of  motives  and  the  will,  as  he  does,  that 
“there  is  an  inseparable  connexion  between  the  In¬ 
fluence  of  the  former  and  the  exertions  of  the  lat¬ 
ter,”  neither  can  there  be  any  doubt,  with  inquisitive 
minds,  as  to  the  second  cause. — Does  not  this  appear 
to  be  involving  in  perplexity,  a  very  plain  case,  and 
throwing  over  it  a  vail  of  mystery,  and  representing 
the  most  profound  research  as  necessary  to  discover 
what  he  had  already  sufficiently  explained!  It  is 
never  worth  while  to  teach  men  to  set  aside  plain, 
sound,  common,  good  sense,  and  to  go  in  quest  of 
something  else  to  be  wise.  But 

5.  What  is  more  to  our  purpose  here  to  remark  is. 
If  God  can  give  to  mind  and  motive  these  mutual 
tendencies;  if  the  antecedent  temper  and  disposition 
of  the  mind  may  be  so  constituted,  and  the  qualities 
of  motives  so  adapted  to  please  the  mind,  that  they 
will  certainly  be  chosen  as  soon  as  they  come  within 
its  view;  then  why  may  not  God  govern  and  deter¬ 
mine  the  wills  of  fallen  men,  at  least  as  to  all  their 
sinful  actions,  by  motives  or  second  causes,  without  a 
direct  operation  on  the  heart?  If  the  connexion  be¬ 
tween  motive  and  volition  be  thus  established,  noth¬ 
ing  further  is  necessary,  than  for  God  in  his  provi¬ 
dence,  to  order  things  in  such  a  manner,  that  motive 
shall  come  within  the  view  of  the  mind.  According 
to  the  Doctor’s  concession,  it  will  then  certainly  be 
chosen. 

This  is  as  full  to  our  purpose  as  any  thing  we 
could  adduce  from  any  writer  whatever. 

The  great  argument,  the  sum  of  all  that  is  advanc¬ 
ed,  to  prove  the  will  is  not  determined  by  motive,  is 


36 


SECTION  III. 


this,  4 ‘Motives,  as  being  wholly  unperceived,  have  no 
tendency  to  move  the  mind,  or  engage  election. 
Beauty  for  instance,  so  long  as  it  is  wholly  unper¬ 
ceived,  hath  no  tendency  to  produce  love  and  engage 
affection.  It  doth  not,  antecedent  to  its  being  per¬ 
ceived,  exert  any  influence  upon  the  mind,  which 
exciteth  to  motion  and  affection;  when  it  is  perceived, 
it  is  too  late  for  it  to  exert  influence  upon  the  mind, 
in  order  to  excite  its  choice;  it  being  already  relish¬ 
ed  and  of  course  chosen.  In  the  mind’s  perceiving 
any  thing,  which  is  fitted  by  the  nature  and  constitu¬ 
tion  of  it,  to  be  an  object  of  its  affection,  is  really  all 
the  choice  which  is  ever  made  of  it.”  West’s  Essay 
on  Moral  Agency. 

Here  the  fallacy  of  the  Dr.’s  argument  lies  very 
much  in  changing  the  concrete  for  the  abstract  term, 
using  beauty  instead  of  a  beautiful  object,  and  mak¬ 
ing  no  distinction  between  the  understanding,  appre¬ 
hending  an  object;  and  the  will,  choosing,  or  relish¬ 
ing,  it. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  tasting  and  relishing  the 
beauty  of  an  object,  and  choosing  it,  are  much  the 
same.  But  the  understanding  perceiving  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  such  an  object,  and  tracing  out  those  quali¬ 
ties,  in  w  hich  beauty  consists,  and  representing  them 
to  the  will,  as  an  object  of  choice,  is  a  very  different 
thing  from  choice  itself;  and  must  not  such  an  act  of 
the  understanding  precede  every  rational  choice,  eith¬ 
er  of  natural  or  moral  beauty?  If  this  distinction  be¬ 
tween  the  office  of  the  understanding  and  the  percep¬ 
tions  of  the  heart  or  will,  be  kept  properly  in  view, 
the  justness  of  the  Dr.’s  reasoning  will  vanish. 

But  not  to  insist  upon  this,  let  us  try  the  force  of 
this  reasoning  in  a  case,  which,  at  least  to  me,  ap¬ 
pears  to  be  parallel.  Fire,  for  instance,  cannot  pro¬ 
duce  the  sensation  of  pain,  till  it  comes  sufficiently  in 
contact  with  the  body,  but  when  it  actually  thus 
reaches  the  body,  the  pain  exists,  and  it  is  then  too 
late  for  the  fire  to  act  and  produce  such  an  effect. 
This  will  not  surely  be  admitted  as  proof,  that  fire  is 


SECTION  III. 


not  the  cause  of  the  sensation  of  pain.  But  the  rea, 
soiling  is  no  better  in  respect  to  the  denial  of  the  influ¬ 
ence  of  motives.  It  is  conceded  by  Dr.  West,  that  a 
motive  wholly  out  of  the  view  of  the  mind,  can  pro¬ 
duce  no  effect,  excite  no  desire,  affection,  or  volition, 
yet  the  mind  may  possess  an  antecedent  capacity,  to 
be  moved  by  it,  when  it  shall  come  into  view.  And 
the  motive,  though  out  of  view7,  may,  in  its  nature, 
have  a  tendency  and  adaptedness  to  excite  the  will, 
whenever  the  understanding  perceives  it.  And  we 
can  say  all  this  and  no  more,  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
body,  and  of  the  fire  which  excites  pain  in  it  by  con¬ 
tact.  Now  when  this  mind  and  this  motive  come 
within  the  sphere  of  operation,  why  does  not  volition 
or  affection  follow,  just  as  naturally,  as  the  pain  in 
case  of  the  application  of  fire  to  the  body;  and  that 
notwithstanding  the  great  difference  there  may  be  in 
respect  to  the  properties  of  the  body  and  mind,  and 
the  different  mode,  in  w  hich  fire  may  operate  on  one 
and  motives  on  the  other.  We  can  perceive  no  pos¬ 
sible  reason  w  hy  w7e  may  not  as  well  say,  there  is  an 
utter  impropriety  in  asserting,  that  fire  is  the  cause 
of  the  sensation  of  pain  w  hen  applied  to  the  body,  as 
to  say,  motive,  when  it  comes  within  view  of  the 
mind,  cannot  be  the  cause  of  desire  or  choice.  This 
reasoning  against  motives  being  the  cause  of  volition 
appears  to  be  very  fallacious,  and  contrary  to  the 
writer’s  ow  n  concession  respecting  the  mutual  tenden¬ 
cies  of  mind  and  motive,  and  contrary  to  plain  com¬ 
mon  sense.  For  we  do  certainly  know  how  men  in 
general  will  act  in  any  given  case,  if  we  can  first  dis¬ 
cover  what  motives  will  there  be  brought  to  operate 
on  the  mind,  or  be  presented  to  its  view.  There  is 
no  other  cause  and  effect  in  nature,  between  which 
the  connexion  is  more  evident  and  certain,  whether 
we  judge  as  philosophers,  or  as  men  of  common  dis¬ 
cernment  and  prudence.  On  the  whole,  it  appears 
that  the  doctrine  of  Lock,  Edwards  and  others  res¬ 
pecting  the  will  being  determined  by  the  strongest 
4  % 


38 


SECTION  III. 


motive  is  sound  philososphy,  and  lias  never  been  de¬ 
molished  by  any  new  theory,  and  we  believe  it  never 
will. 


POSITION  II. 

The  other  position  is  one,  which  certainly  demands 
a  serious  consideration,  for  it  is  professedly  derived 
from  most  express  and  solemn  declarations  of  Scrip¬ 
ture.  It  is  however  of  the  same  tenor  with  the  preced¬ 
ing.  It  affirms  that  God  does  not  by  any  arrangement, 
plication  or  power,  given  to  second  causes  and  in¬ 
struments,  determine  the  wills  of  wicked  men,  and 
give  existence  to  their  moral  exercises.  If  the 
Scriptures  taught  any  such  doctrine  as  this,  the  ques¬ 
tion  would  be  decided,  and  here  we  ought  to  stop  and 
be  silent  for  ever. 

It  is  a  most  obvious  and  glorious  truth,  that  the 
Scriptures  represent  God  as  exercising  an  absolute 
and  most  perfect  control  and  moral  government  over 
the  minds,  the  wills,  the  passions,  inclinations  and 
designs  of  men,  considered  as  nations  or  individuals. 

To  this  purpose  are  the  following  texts,  and  many 
others  that  might  be  adduced: — “Surely  the  wrath  of 
man  shall  praise  thee,  and  the  remainder  of  wrath 
shalt  thou  restrain.”  “The  king’s  heart  is  in  the 
hand  of  the  Lord,  as  the  rivers  of  wateiq  he  turneth 
it  withersoever  he  will.”  Prov.  xxi,  1.  “He  turned 
their  heart  to  hate  his  people,  to  deal  subtilly  with 
his  servants.”  Ps.  cv,  25.  “Incline  my  heart  unto 
thy  testimonies,  and  not  unto  covetousness.”  Ps. 
cxix,  36.  “Therefore  hath  he  mercy  on  whom  he 
will  have  mercy,  and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth.” 
Rom.  ix,  18.  “For  God  hath  put  in  their  hearts  to 
fulfd  his  will,  and  to  agree,  and  give  their  kingdom 
unto  the  beast, until  the  words  of  God  shall  be  fulfilled.” 
Rev.  xvii,  17.  INow  these  are  some  of  the  most  plain 
and  forcible  texts  which  ascribe  the  production  of 
moral  evil  to  a  divine  agency. 


SECTION  III. 


39 


Mr.  Weeks  has  produced  a  very  long  list  of  texts 
of  this  description;  but  what  is  all  this  to  the  purpose? 
He  has  still  to  prove  that  these  texts  relate  not  to  the 
providential  government  of  God,  but  to  an  immediate 
divine  agency  upon  the  hearts  of  sinners.  But  of 
this  he  has  not  given  a  shadow  of  proof  from  the  word 
of  God.  That  they  prove,  that  the  will,  the  decree, 
and  unalterable  counsel  of  God,  are  concerned  in  ev¬ 
ery  instance  of  the  existence  of  moral  evil,  we  fully 
believe.  But  still  the  question  remains  to  be  decided, 
Hoes  God  execute  his  will  or  purpose  in  turning  the 
king's  heart,  or  the  heart  of  other  sinners,  witherso¬ 
ever  he  will,  by  a  direct  operation  on  the  mind,  or 
by  the  intervention  and  agency  of  second  causes? 

The  opposing  doctrine  says — God  does  not,  and 
cannot  exercise  this  absolute  government  and  con¬ 
trol,  over  the  wills  and  passions  of  men,  but  by  a  di¬ 
rect  influence  on  the  heart.  No  direction  or  appli¬ 
cation  of  second  causes  or  motives  by  his  almighty 
power  and  wisdom,  is  sufficient  to  account  for  the 
event.  To  prove  that  the  texts  of  the  description  of 
those  just  cited,  can  mean  nothing  less  than  this  im¬ 
mediate  or  direct  influence  on  the  heart  of  wicked 
men,  Dr.  Hopkins,  on  the  Divine  Decrees,  thus  ar¬ 
gues:*— “If  the  Scriptures,  which  have  been  mention¬ 
ed,  where  hardening  the  hearts  of  men,  blinding  and 
shutting  their  eyes,  and  inclining  and  turning  their 
hearts,  when  they  practice  moral  evil,  kc.  if  these 
Scriptures  are  to  be  understood,  as  meaning  no  more 
than  that  God  orders  their  situation  and  external 
circumstances  to  be  such,  that  considering  their  dis¬ 
position,  and  the  evil  bias  of  their  minds,  they  will 
without  any  other  influence,  be  blinded  and  hard¬ 
ened;  then  all  those  Scriptures,  which  speak  of 
God’s  changing  and  softening  the  heart,  taking  away 
the  hard  heart,  and  giving  an  heart  of  flesh,  and  caus¬ 
ing  men  to  walk  in  his  ways,  kc.  may  and  must  be 
understood  in  the  same  way,  as  not  intending  any 
special  divine  influence  on  the  mind,  &e.” 


*  System  of  Doctrine,  vol,  i,  p.  196. 


40 


SECTION  III. 


With  all  due  deference  to  so  great  a  writer,  and 
one  who  commonly  reasons  with  so  much  correctness 
and  power,  I  must  be  allowed  to  say,  that  his  argu¬ 
ment  here  is  utter  ly  inconclusive.  If  there  was  as 
much  said  in  one  case  as  in  the  other,  about  the  neces¬ 
sity  and  reality  of  a  divine  influence,  his  argument 
would  be  good.  But  is  not  tire  very  reverse  of  this 
true.  In  regard  to  saints,  it  is  in  the  first  place  de¬ 
clared  of  them,  when  considered  in  themselves,  that 
their  hearts  are  fully  set  in  them  to  do  evil!  Here 
then  is  a  necessity  of  a  divine  influence  to  incline 
them  to  good,  that  does  not  exist  in  regard  to  inclin¬ 
ing  them  to  evil.  For  their  whole  nature  is  previous¬ 
ly  bent  this  way. — .“There  is  none  that  seeketh  after 
God,  there  is  none  that  doeth  good;  no,  not  one.” 

Is  it  not  expressly  declared  in  regard  to  the  good 
exercises  of  saints  that  the  effect  is  not  of  themselves. 
“It  is  not  of  him  that  wilieth,  nor  of  him  that  run¬ 
neth,  but  of  God  that  slieweth  mercy.”  But  where 
is  it  thus  declared,  that  all  the  wicked  exercises  of 
sinners  are  not  of  themselves,  but  of  God?  Then  is  a 
man  tempted,  says  James,  when  he  is  drawn  away  of 
his  own  lust.  Christ  says  of  Satan,  “When  he 
speaketh  a  lie,  he  speaketli  of  his  own.”  “Oh,  Israel 
thou  hast  destroyed  thyself.”  It  is  not  the  language  of 
the  Bible,  when  a  man  steals,  lies,  commits  adultery, 
&c.  to  say  it  is  not  of  himself,  but  of  God.  There¬ 
fore  to  represent,  these  two  classes  of  texts  as  equally 
expressive  of  a  direct,  inward,  divine  agency  on  the 
heart,  is  a  perversion  of  Scripture,  and  a  very  gross 
one.  But  into  this  error  has  Dr.  Hopkins  and  Mr. 
Weeks  both  fallen. 

3.  It  is  expressly  declared  in  the  divine  word, 
that  no  means,  motives,  or  second  causes,  are  suffi¬ 
cient  of  themselves,  though  applied  in  the  course  of 
divine  providence,  to  produce  the  holy  and  gracious 
exercises  of  the  new  creature.  “I  have  planted, 
Apollos  watered;  but  God  gave  the  increase.” — “He 
that  loveth,  is  born  of  God.”  But  where  do  we  find 
it  written,  that  no  arguments,  no  enticements,  no 


SECTION  III, 


4l 


temptations  to  sin,  are  sufficient  to  lead  men  into  evil 
conduct;  where  do  we  read,  that  Satan  may  tempt, 
wicked  men  allure,  the  world  may  fascinate,  but  all 
in  vain  till  God  moves  the  heart  to  do  evil?  Hence 
to  explain  what  is  found  in  the  Scriptures  of  the 
agency  of  God  in  the  production  of  moral  evil, 
hardening  tiie  hearts  and  blinding  the  eyes,  &c.  of 
his  doing  this  by  the  instrumentality  of  second  causes, 
does  by  no  means  intrench  upon  the  doctrine  of  a 
direct  divine  influence  in  the  regeneration  of  sinners, 
and  moving  or  exciting  them  to  that,  which  is  good. 
Nor  is  this  idea  more  inconsistent,  than  the  Arme¬ 
nian  theory,  which  refers  what  is  said  of  a  divine 
agency,  both  in  regard  to  the  exercises  of  sinners 
and  saints,  altogether  to  the  power  and  influence  of 
second  causes,  as  the  Doctor  asserts.  In  regard  to 
this  point  we  beg  leave  to  add  the  following  remarks: 

1.  Are  the  judgments  of  God  unsearchable  and  his 
ways  past  finding  out!  Is  it  not  then  presumption,  in  a 
high  degree,  to  say,  the  infinitely  wise  and  powerful 
Jehovah,  cannot  give  any  such  efficacy  to  second 
causes  and  instruments,  as  to  turn  the  hearts  of 
men,  what  w  ay  he  pleases,  without  any  other  in¬ 
fluence?  He  that  dares  to  do  this  must  not  expect  to 
be  admired  for  his  humility  and  great  reverence  for 
the  Deity. 

2.  Is  it  not  customary  in  the  language  of  Scrip¬ 
ture,  to  ascribe  to  an  agent  the  performance  of  a 
work,  which  he  executes  by  the  instrumentality  of 
others,  merely  because  it  took  place  according  to  his 
counsel  and  design. — Nathan  said  to  David,  “Thou 
hast  killed  Uriah  the  Hitt ite,  with  the  sword.”  But 


would  not  he  be  guilty  of  falsehood,  who  should  say 
David  did  it,  not  by  instruments,  hut  by  his  own  im¬ 
mediate  agency?  So  we  conceive,  that  the  w  ickedness 
which  takes  place  in  the  world,  hardening  hearts,  &c. 
is  ascribed  to  God,  because  it  is  agreeable  to  his  infi¬ 
nitely  w  ise  counsels  and  designs,  to  order  tilings  in 
his  Providence  so  that  it  will  come  to  pass;  and  he 
would  be  equally  guilty  of  misrepresenting  his  ways, 
*4  *' 


42 


SECTION  III. 


who  should  say  he  brings  it  to  pass  by  a  direct 
agency,  and  not  by  the  instrumentality  of  second 
causes. 

3.  That  it  is  by  the  instrumentality  of  second 
causes  and  instruments,  that  God  works  in  regard 
to  all,  whom  he  is  said  to  harden  and  blind,  and  not 
by  a  direct  influence  on  their  heart,  is  plain  from  this; 
that  the  same  instances  of  moral  evil  which  are  as¬ 
cribed  to  his  agency,  are  in  the  same  divine  word 
explained  to  take  place  through  the  instrumentality 
of  second  causes.  In  SThess.  ii,  11, 12,  it  is  said  of 
some,  who  hated  and  abused  the  truth, ‘‘For  this  cause 
God  shall  send  them  strong  delusion,  that  they  should 
believe  a  lie,  that  they  all  might  be  damned,  who 
believed  not  the  truth  but  had  pleasure  in  unright¬ 
eousness."  But  in  the  verses  immediately  preceding, 
the  great  instrument,  by  which  this  was  brought 
about,  is  expressly  named — “Whose  coming”  (i.  e. 
the  man  of  sin  with  this  strong  delusion,)  “is  after 
the  working  of  Satan,  w  ith  ail  power  and  signs  and 
lying  wonders,  with  all  deceivableness  of  unright¬ 
eousness  in  them  that  perish,  &c."  In  like  manner,  in 
all  instances  wherein  God  is  said  to  harden  the 
hearts  of  men,  deceive  and  blind  them,  it  is  equally 
easy  to  point  out  the  instruments  by  which  it  is  done, 
and  account  for  it  all  without  any  immediate  positive 
influence  upon  the  heart  of  the  wicked.  If  it  should 
here  be  objected  that  the  good  exercises  of  the  virtu¬ 
ous  are  sometimes  ascribed  to  instruments  and  sec¬ 
ond  causes,  as  we  read  of  saints  being  born  of  the 
word,  &c.  and  therefore  there  is  no  immediate 
divine  influence  concerned  in  their  production,  it 
must  be  replied,  as  stated  in  a  preceding  article,  that 
the  Bible  tells  us,  that  in  regard  to  the  good  exer¬ 
cises  of  saints,  no  second  cause  is  sufficient;  but  it 
does  not  tell  us  that  no  second  cause,  enticement  or 
temptation,  is  insufficient  to  lead  w  icked  men  into  sin; 
but  the  contrary,  that  they  are  led  away  of  their  own 
lust,  and  that  Satan  leads  them  captive  at  bis  will. 


SECTION  III. 


43 


4.  It  seems  to  be  too  much  overlooked  by  tlmse, 
who  bring  these  texts  to  prove  an  immediate  divine 
influence,  as  necessary  in  all  instances  to  move  tho 
will  of  wicked  men  to  choose  and  act,  that  the  pas¬ 
sages  relate  not  to  the  ordinary,  but  special  provi¬ 
dential  dealings  of  the  Most  High.  Hardening  the 
heart,  blinding  the  eyes,  &c.  is  a  judgment  inflicted 
upon  men  peculiarly  wicked  for  former  sins  and 
transgressions.  In  the  instance  of  strong  delusion 
just  referred  to,  it  was  for  hatred  and  abuse  of  the 
truth,  it  was  sent.  Nor  was  it  a  procedure  that  re¬ 
lated  equally  to  all  men,  but  specially  to  those,  who 
had  been  thus  guilty. 

Now  to  apply  these  passages  equally  to  all  men, 
even,  if  they  did  imply  an  immediate  positive  divine 
agency,  would  be  to  misinterpret  and  pervert  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  Thus  we  conceive  these  two  diffi¬ 
culties,  thrown  in  the  way  of  our  theory,  are  fairly 
removed;  and  if  these  be  removed,  the  system  of 
direct  and  positive  efficiency  as  asserted  by  these 
writers,  is  entirely  overthrown;  for  this  is  all  they 
have  to  support  it.  God  must  move  the  heart  of 
wicked  men  to  sin,  because  motives  in  no  case  can 
be  the  cause  of  choice,  or  of  the  mind’s  acting.  But 
this,  as  we  have  seen,  is  contrary  to  the  opinion  of  the 
most  profound  researches  of  preceding  philosophers, 
contrary  to  the  plain  dictates  of  common  sense,  con¬ 
trary  to  the  established  laws  of  nature,  and  what  is 
more,  contrary  to  the  constant  and  plain  representa¬ 
tions  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  continually  speak 
of  created  agents,  second  causes,  and  instruments, 
as  acting  upon  and  exciting  the  minds  of  men.  And 
because,  when  the  Scriptures  represent  God  as  har¬ 
dening  the  hearts  of  sinners,  and  turning  them  what 
way  he  will,  it  is  a  mere  assumption,  to  say  it  must 
be  by  an  immediate  divine  influence,  yea  it  is  a  posi¬ 
tion  of  these  writers,  not  only  assumed  without  evi¬ 
dence,  but  in  opposition  to  the  most  solemn  declara¬ 
tions  of  the  Bible,  to  the  contrary,  as  we  shall  soon 
attempt  to  shew. 


44 


SECTION  III. 


I  well  know  that  confidence  in  any  opinion  is  no 
proof  of  its  truth,  but  certain  I  enjoy  as  complete  rest 
in  the  evidence  of  the  falsehood  of  the  theory  we  op¬ 
pose,  as  in  the  strength  of  the  evidence  of  the  divini¬ 
ty  of  Christ,  or  any  other  Christian  doctrine. 

Here  it  may  not  be  amiss,  to  cite  a  few  examples, 
to  shew  how  liable,  men,  even  of  the  most  extraordi¬ 
nary  mental  powers  and  eminent  piety,  are,  to  err  in 
their  abstract  metaphysical  disquisitions,  and  how 
little  stress  is  to  be  laid  upon  their  most  confident 
conclusions,  unless  we  can  see  them  to  be  the  obvi¬ 
ous  dictates  of  revelation.  George  Berkley,  bishop 
of  Cloyne,  was  justly  celebrated  for  his  genius, 
learning,  piety  and  humanity;  but  he  was  not  only  a 
Christian,  but  a  philosopher,  and  long  rested  with  a 
surprising  confidence  in  some  of  the  most  absurd  and 
extraordinary  results  of  his  abstract  reasoning. 

In  his  Principles  of  Human  Knowledge,  he  denies 
the  existence  of  every  kind  of  matter  whatever;  nor 
does  he  think  this  conclusion  one,  which  in  any  de¬ 
gree,  need  stagger  the  incredulous;  “Some  truths 
there  are  so  near,  says  he,  and  obvious  to  the  mind, 
that  a  man  need  only  open  his  eyes  to  see  them;  such 
1  take  this  important  one  to  be,  that  all  the  choir  of 
heaven,  and  furniture  of  earth — in  a  word,  ail  those 
bodies,  which  compose  the  mighty  frame  of  the  world, 
have  not  any  subsistence  without  a  mind.”  Accord- 
inc  to  this  theory,  God  never  created  anv  material 
world.  All  we  read  of  the  work  of  creation,  as  to 
sun,  moon  and  stars,  earth  and  seas,  beasts,  birds 
and  the  bodies  of  men,  has  no  reality  in  it.  God 
only  caused  ideas  of  these  things  to  arise  in  the 
minds  of  men  or  angels,  and  out  of  their  minds  they 
have  no  existence.  The  whole  frame  of  the  material 
universe  is  only  a  creature  of  imagination,  a  dream, 
which  has  no  subsistence  out  of  the  mind  of  the 
dreamer. 

A  system  more  opposed  to  common  sense,  and  the 
plain  declarations  of  the  divine  word,  never  was,  and 
never  could  be,  devised.  Yet  the  bishop  for  a  long 


SECTION  III. 


45 


time  bad  no  doubt  of  its  truth.  “It  is  thought,  how¬ 
ever,  that  towards  the  close  of  his  life  he  began  to 
doubt  the  solidity  of  metaphysical  speculations.” 
[N.  Edinburgh  Encyc.  vol.  3,  p.  452.] 

Our  next  example  shall  be  taken  from  a  writer,  no 
less  celebrated  for  his  uncommon  powers  of  mind  and 
eminent  piety,  than  president  Edwards. 

In  his  Treatise  on  Original  Sin,  Fart  IV,  Art.  3, 
where  he  is  endeavoring  to  make  it  appear,  that 
personal  identity,  or  even  the  identity  of  material 
substance^depends  entirely  on  the  arbitrary  appoint¬ 
ment  or  constitution  of  the  Creator,  i.  e.  the  body  of 
the  moon,  which  may  exist  the  next  moment,  cannot 
be  literally  the  same  with  that,  which  now  exists;  it 
is  the  same,  only,  as  God  has  determined  it  shall  be 
considered  the  same, — he  has  these  words;  “It  will 
certainly  follow  from  these  things,  that  God’s  pre¬ 
serving  created  things  in  being,  is  perfectly  equiva¬ 
lent  to  a  continued  creation,  or  his  creating  those 
things  out  of  nothing  at  each  moment  of  their  exist¬ 
ence.  Therefore  the  antecedent  existence  is  noth¬ 
ing,  as  to  any  proper  influence,  or  assistance  in  the 
affair;  and  consequently  God  produced  the  effect  as 
much  from  nothing,  as  if  there  had  been  nothing  be¬ 
fore,  so  that  this  effect  differs  not  at  all  from  the 
first  creation,  but  only  circumstantially;  as  in  first 
creation  there  had  been  no  such  act  and  effect  of 
God’s  power  before;  whereas  his  giving  existence 
afterwards,  follows  preceding  acts  and  effects  of  the 
same  kind  in  an  established  order.”  On  this  re¬ 
markable  passage  we  submit  the  following  reflec¬ 
tions: 

i.  According  to  this  reasoning,  this  material 
globe  and  all  the  beings  that  exist  upon  it,  are,  to-day, 
not  the  same  that  existed  yesterday.  They  are  all  a 
perfectly  new  creation.  They  are  only  the  same,  as 
it  is  the  arbitrary  will  of  the  Creator  to  call  them 
the  same.  But  is  there  no  truth  in  things  them¬ 
selves,  so  that  one.  thing  cannot  be  called  another,  if 
it  be  not  this  other,  but  perfectly  distinct  from  it.  Is 


46 


SECTION  III. 


it  not  a  plain  contradiction  and  absurdity,  to  call  two 
things  thus  distinct,  the  same.  Is  it  in  the  power  of 
any  will,  finite  or  infinite,  to  make  them  the  same, 
while  they  are  thus  distinct  from  each  other  in  na¬ 
ture  and  reality.  The  identity  of  things  must  have 
some  other  foundation,  whether  we  can  comprehend 
it  or  not. 

2.  Does  it  not  follow  from  this  mode  of  reasoning, 
that,  though  God  may  always  be  creating,  yet  he 
cannot  form  in  his  own  mind  the  plan  of  any  partic¬ 
ular  system,  bring  it  into  being,  and  cause  that  very 
system  to  continue  in  being,  through  a  succession  of 
ages?  But  is  this  agreeable  to  the  representations  of 
the  Scriptures?  Do  they  not  speak  of  God  as  having 
continued  the  work  of  creation  for  six  days;  at  the 
end  of  which  period,  all  was  finished,  and  he  rested 
from  all  his  work  which  he  had  made?  The  work  of 
preservation,  of  government,  of  superintendence  and 
direction,  did  indeed  remain;  but  the  work  of  crea¬ 
tion  being  completed,  it  was  not  again  to  be  repeated 
every  hour  and  moment.  What  a  conception  is  this! 
that  the  infinite  God  should  undertake  to  create  a 
w  orld,  but  he  could  not  make  his  w  ork  stand;  every 
moment  it  would  slip  out  of  being,  and  ali  he  could 
do  w  as  to  create  another,  and  call  it  the  same,  though 
it  was  perfectly  new  and  distinct  from  the  former. 

This  is  in  effect  to  say,  that  God  never  had,  and 
never  could  have,  any  permanent,  established  crea¬ 
tion.  Howt  different  this  metaphysical  speculation 
from  the  plain  common  sense  of  the  Psalmist!  ‘‘For 
he  spake  and  it  was  done;  he  commanded  and  it 
stood  fast.”  Ps.  xxxiii,  9. 

3.  Howr  could  it  happen,  that  a  man,  who  exceed¬ 
ed  most  others  in  intellectual  strength  and  acuteness 
of  investigation,  should  have  adopted  it  as  a  very 
evident  principle,  that  the  antecedent  existence  of  a 
created  object,  is  no  evidence,  or  cause,  that  it  w  ill 
exist  the  next  moment? 

We  humbly  conceive,  that  this  is  so  far  from  being 
true,  that  the  present  existence  of  it  is  an  infallible 


SECTION  III. 


47 


proof,  that  it  will  continue  to  exist.  And  this  cer¬ 
tainty  of  its  future  existence  cannot  be  destroyed,  but 
by  our  having  proof,  that  God  will  exert  his  omnipo¬ 
tent  power  to  annihilate  it.  As  no  object  can  create 
itself,  so  no  one  can  annihilate  itself.  It  might  of  it¬ 
self  as  well  begin  to  be,  as  to  cease  to  be.  It  re¬ 
quires  as  great  a  power  to  annihilate  as  to  create; 
therefore,  supposing  the  globe  on  which  we  dwell  to 
have  been  once  created,  or  caused  actually  to  exist, 
we  may,  on  this  ground,  be  perfectly  sure  it  will  ex¬ 
ist  to-morrow  and  even  to  eternity,  unless  that  same 
infinite  Power  which  at  first  gave  it  being,  reduce  it 
back  to  nothing. 

It  therefore  appears  to  be  impossible,  that  God 
should  create  anew  world,  and  put  it  into  the  place 
of  the  one  which  now  exists,  without  first  removing, 
or  annihilating  this.  And  no  such  thing  is,  or  can 
be  necessary,  in  the  work  of  preservation,  as  a  new’ 
creation  every  successive  moment. 

‘‘God  having  once  created  an  object,  that  very 
self-same  object  will  ever  continue  to  exist,  and  be 
the  same  till  God  by  an  act  of  his  infinite  power, 
changes  its  nature  or  form,  or  causes  it  not  to  be. 
And  here  we  can  cite  no  writer  in  opposition  to  this 
notion  of  preservation,  advocated  by  Mr.  Edwards, 
more  pertinent  than  Mr.  Edwards  himself,  in  his 
book  on  the  Freedom  of  the  Will.” 

‘‘That  whatsoever  begins  to  be,  which  before  was 
not,  must  have  a  cause  why  it  then  begins  to  exist, 
seems  to  be  the  first  dictate  of  the  common  and  nat¬ 
ural  sense,  which  God  hath  implanted  in  the  minds  of 
all  mankind.  And  this  dictate  of  common  sense 
equally  respects  substances  and  modes,  or  things  and 
the  manner  and  circumstances  of  things.  Thus  if 
we  see  a  body,  which  has  hitherto  been  at  rest,  start 
out  of  a  state  of  rest  and  begin  to  move,  we  do  as 
naturally  and  necessarily  suppose,  there  is  some 
cause  or  reason  of  this  new  mode  of  existence,  as  of 
the  existence  of  a  body  itself,  which  bad  hitherto  not 
existed.” 


48 


SECTION  III. 


Now  would  not  this  same  common  sense  suppose, 
that  if  God  had  once  created  a  world,  it  could  not 
cease  to  be  without  some  adequate  cause,  and  unless 
it  did  cease  to  be,  it  is  absurd  to  talk  of  its  being 
actually  created  anew,  every  moment,  in  order  to  its 
preservation.  It  is  hence  extremely  obvious,  that 
neither  personal  or  material  identity,  is  a  thing, 
that  depends  upon  mere  arbitrary  appointment. 

We  shall  quote  but  one  example  more,  and  that 
from  Dr.  Stephen  West,  on  Moral  Agency,  Part  I, 
Sec.  t,  p.  IT.  “Moral  agency,  (without  any  meta¬ 
physical  subtilty  or  refinement,)  consists  in  spontane¬ 
ous  voluntary  exertion .”  “If  any  one  therefore  in¬ 
quired),  wherein  consisteth  that  liberty  which  is 
essential  to  moral  agency,  it  must  be  replied,  In 
spontaneous  voluntary  exertion .”  p.  36. 

On  this  definition  he  builds  his  whole  treatise  on 
moral  agency.  We  shall  here  submit  a  few  re¬ 
marks  to  the  consideration  of  the  candid. 

1.  Are  the  terms  “spontaneous  and  voluntary” 
perfectly  synonymous;  if  they  are,  one  of  them  is 
quite  superfluous.  But  if  spontaneous  signifies  some¬ 
thing  more,  or  different  from  voluntary ,  then  moral 
agency,  consists  in  something  besides  voluntary  exer¬ 
tion. 

2.  Does  not  moral  agency  consist  in  a  power,  or 
capacity,  to  put  forth  moral  action,  or  to  perform  ac¬ 
tions  worthy  of  praise  or  blame?  Then  it  cannot  con¬ 
sist  in  voluntary  exertion,  for  this  is  moral  action. 
And  a  capability  of  action  is  not  the  same  thing  with 
action  itself.  Is  a  man’s  capacity  to  walk,  the  same 
thing  as  the  act  itself,  of  walking?  Moral  action  and 
moral  agency,  are  two  distinct  things.  Voluntary 
exertion  may  do  for  the  definition  of  moral  action  in 
a  rational  creature;  but  it  will  not  do  for  the  defini¬ 
tion  of  his  capability  to  put  forth  such  action.  Moral 
agency,  according  to  president  Edwards  and  otiier 
writers,  consists  in  the  powers  of  understanding, 
reason,  judgment,  moral  sense,  the  elective  faculty, 
&c.  And  here  the  Scriptures  also  evidently  place  it. 


SECTION  III. 


49 


“He  that  knoweth  to  do  good  and  doetli  it  not  (saith 
the  apostle  James,)  to  him  it  is  sin.” 

Short  as  this  inspired  description  of  moral  agency 
is,  all  the  volumes  of  metaphysical  discussion  have 
added  nothing  to  it.  It  seems  then,  that  Dr.  West 
has  entirely  mistaken  the  point.  Moral  agency  does 
not  at  all  consist  in  voluntary  exertion. 

3.  But  even  if  this  definition  were  true  so  far  as  it 
goes,  it  seems  to  be  defective;  for  may  not  brutes  be 
capable  of  voluntary  exertion?  Is  not  this  spontane¬ 
ous  exertion  in  the  hound,  when  after  having  taken 
the  scent,  he  sets  off  in  pursuit  of  the  fox?  But  if  it 
is,  it  does  not  constitute  him  a  moral  agent.  For 
something  else,  some  other  power,  faculty,  or  prin¬ 
ciple  of  nature,  is  absolutely  necessary  to  this. 

4.  From  what  the  Doctor  says  in  this  same  sec-  • 
tion,  it  is  obvious  he  does  not  admit  any  other  power, 
or  principle  of  the  soul,  distinct  from  voluntary  ex¬ 
ertion,  as  necessary  to  moral  agency.  Nay,  it  seems 
to  be  implied,  that  the  soul  itself  is  not  any  thing 
distinct  from  voluntary  exertion.  Now  upon  his 
theory  what  a  vast  signification  is  given  to  this 
phrase. 

“The  soul  of  man  consists  in  voluntary  exertion; 
vice  and  virtue  consist  in  voluntary  exertion;  moral 
agency  consists  in  voluntary  exertion;  the  liberty 
essential  to  moral  agency  consists  in  voluntary  exer¬ 
tion.” 

When  a  single  word  or  phrase  is  made  to  signify 
so  much,  in  a  deep  metaphysical  discussion,  it  cannot 
fail  to  create  a  suspicion,  that  it  means  nothing  at 
all,  oris  not  very  accurately  defined. 

We  might  go  on  and  multiply  examples  of  this 
kind  from  different  writers  without  end.  But  these 
remarks  arc  not  designed  to  detract  from  the  merit 
of  much  that  is  valuable  and  excellent  in  their  works. 
Our  object  is  to  shew  the  danger  of  relying  upon 
mere  human  theories  in  divinity,  though  struck  out 
by  the  greatest  and  best  of  men.  From  my  first  ac¬ 
quaintance  with  compositions  of  this  kind,  I  always 
■5 


50 


SECTION  111. 


found  a  difficulty  in  reconciling  many  of  their  posi¬ 
tions  with  common  sense  and  the  Holy  Scriptures; 
but  who  was  I,  that  1  should  dare  to  suspect  the 
justness  of  speculations  so  profound,  and  sanctioned 
by  the  splendor  of  names  so  illustrious.  But  the 
snare  is  broken,  and  no  mere  human  writings  have 
been  of  more  benefit  to  me,  in  this  respect,  than 
Milner’s  Church  History.  I  have  lately  reviewed 
some  of  these  speculations,  with  which  the  young 
student  in  divinity,  is  so  liable  to  be  charmed,  and 
it  has  served  more  completely  to  destroy  all  confi¬ 
dence,  in  the  abstract  reasoning,  even  of  men  of  the 
most  astonishing  powers  of  mind,  unless  I  can  per¬ 
ceive,  what  they  advance  in  theology,  to  be  clearly 
taught  in  the  sacred  volume. 

These  metaphysical  deeps  now  appear  to  me  to  be 
a  dangerous  snare;  the  bait  is  the  pride  of  being 
wise  beyond  what  is  written.  They  create  a  dis¬ 
taste  for  that  plain  sincere  milk  of  the  word,  which 
administers  nourishment,  vigor,  purity,  humility  and 
joy  to  the  soul.  Christian  philosophers  as  well  as 
pagan,  cannot  walk  without  the  guidance  of  the  plain 
word  of  God.  When  they  forsake  this  light,  when 
they  undertake  to  explain  what  the  inspired  wri¬ 
ters  were  not  commissioned  to  unfold,  the  greatest 
efforts  of  genius,  only  exhibit  proof  of  the  feebleness 
of  the  human  understanding,  and  man’s  utter  inca¬ 
pacity  in  his  fallen  state,  by  searching  to  find  out 
God.  In  view  of  their  most  elaborate  performances, 
they  will  give  us  too  much  occasion  to  exclaim  with 
Cowper, 

— - “I  feel  my  heart. 

Dissolve  in  pity,  and  account  the  learned, 

If  this  be  learning,  most  of  all  deceived.” 


SECTION  IV. 


IN  WHICH  IT  IS  SHEWN  THAT  THE  THEORY  UNDER 
EXAMINATION  IS  CONTRARY  TO  ANALOGY  AND 
SOUND  PHILOSOPHY,  SO  FAR  AS  ANY  REGARD  IS  DUE 
TO  THE  MOST  SOBER  AND  CAUTIOUS  REASONINGS 
OF  THIS  KIND. 

It  is  not  every  ingenious  or  profound  speculation, 
that  constitutes  true  philosophy.  This  is  not  such 
an  absurd,  contradictory  thing.  A  vast  proportion 
of  the  most  boasted  reasonings  of  men  on  divinity 
are  a  vain  and  pernicious  philosophism.  But  to  come 
at  truth  here,  some  just  standard  must  be  applied. 
As  we  have  already  stated,  the  infallible  rule,  from 
which  there  is  no  appeal,  is  the  volume  of  revelation. 
The  next  is  the  nature  of  things. 

Nothing  is  false  which  is  agreeable  to  the  attri¬ 
butes,  ways  and  works  of  God.  This  standard  is 
less  certain  and  authoritative,  only  as  the  imperfect 
reason  of  man  is  more  liable  to  err  in  the  application. 
In  this  section,  it  is  proposed  to  try  this  new  theory 
by  this  natural  standard.  Unless  1  am  deceived  it 
is  unphilosophical  in  the  following  respects. 

I.  It  is  contrary  to  analogy.  In  order  to  turn 
an  heart  of  enmity  and  rebellion  against  God  into  love 
and  obedience  it  is  easy  to  admit  that  a  direct  and 
positive  divine  efficiency  is  necessary,*  but  to  say  the 
same  special  divine  agency  is  necessarily  to  excite 
sinful  exercises  in  an  heart  previously  disposed  to 
nothing  but  sin,  is  quite  different  from  the  common 
train  of  human  reasoning  in  cases,  which  bear  a 


SECTION  IV. 


strong  analogy  to  this. — Suppose  a  grave  and  serious 
writer,  with  aii  the  parade  of  deep  discovery  and 
profound  wisdom  should  describe  the  tyger,  with  all 
ins  ferocious  appetites  and  thirst  for  blood  and  dex¬ 
terity  to  take  bis  prey,  and  represent  him  as  thus 
formed  and  upheld  by  the  power  of  God;  suppose 
further,  he  should  describe  a  lamb  as  it  really  is,  and 
place  it  under  the  very  nose  of  this  tyger;  and  then 
should  affirm  that  this  ferocious  beast  could  not  even 
hunger  for  this  lamb,  nor  leap  upon  him,  till  his  heart 
was  moved  by  a  special  divine  power  to  do  it?  Who 
would  admire  him  for  his  wisdom?  Would  not  such  a 
philosopher  make  himself  ridiculous? 

Would  not  every  one  say,  if  there  had  been  any 
special  divine  power  necessary  in  the  case,  it  must 
have  been  the  other  way,  to  prevent  the  tyger  from 
actually  devouring  the  lamb?  The  additional  power, 
if  necessary  at  all,  was  not  to  make  him  eat  it,  but 
to  shut  up  bis  mouth.  Was  it  not  so  in  the  case  of 
Daniel?  The  divine  power  was  displayed,  in  restrain¬ 
ing  the  operations  of  that  nature  which  God  had  given 
those  furious  beasts  into  whose  den  he  was  thrown. 
And  why  is  it  not  just  so  in  regard  to  creatures  whose 
hearts  are  fully  set  in  them  to  do  evil?  If  a  special 
divine  power  be  necessary,  it  is  not  to  move  them 
to  choose  evil,  but  to  restrain  or  change  their  corrupt 
nature. 

2.  It  annihilates  the  whole  system  of  second  caus¬ 
es  in  the  moral  world.  If  there  is  any  principle  of 
knowledge  and  certainty  in  regard  to  the  works  and 
ways  of  God,  it  is  this.  That  creatures  are  formed  so 
mutually  related  and  dependent  on  each  other,  and 
such  powers,  capacities  and  energies  enter  into  the 
very  constitution  of  their  nature,  that  under  the  all 
sustaining  and  governing  providence  of  God,  they  can 
exert  a  very  powerful  influence  upon  each  other. 

This  is  eminently  the  case  in  regard  to  the  moral 
world.  On  this  principle  the  whole  system  of  human 
duty,  in  regard  to  fellow  beings;  and  all  prudence,  fore¬ 
sight  and  wisdom  in  the  economy  of  human  affairs, 


SECTION  IV, 


5 3 


are  founded.  But  does  not  Mr.  W.  R.  Weeks,  in  his 
volume  of  Nine  Sermons,  pp.  38 — 42,  lay  it  down  as 
a  certainty,  that  nothing  “but  the  immediate  agency 
of  God  alone  can  move  the  mind  to  act.”  But  is  not 
this,  by  a  single  stroke,  to  abolish  all  idea  of  any  second 
causality  or  agency  in  the  moral  world?  Is  it  indeed  a 
real  fact,  that  in  the  nature  of  things,  in  reasoning, 
persuasion,  example,  promises,  threatenings,  tempta¬ 
tions,  &c.  there  is  nothing  fitted  to  influence  the  human 
will  to  the  choice  of  either  good  or  evil?  Is  there  no 
reality  in  all  that  is  believed  by  men  and  taught  in 
the  Bible  of  second  causes  and  effects,  or  of  one 
creature’s  acting  upon,  or  moving  and  exciting  the 
will,  the  affections,  the  desires,  tbe  fears,  the  hopes 
and  passions  of  another?  Is  Satan’s  working  in  the 
hearts  of  the  children  of  disobedience  and  leading 
them  captive  at  his  will,  a  misrepresentation?  Is  this 
all,  that  can  be  said  in  truth  of  it.  “It  seems  to  be 
so,  but  is  not  so  in  reality?”  What  is  this  but  in 
effect  to  treat  the  whole  system  of  God’s  works  as  the 
ancient  Docetae  did  the  incarnation  and  sufferings  of 
Christ.  It  was  a  mere  shadow  without  realitv. 
For  in  truth  according  to  this  theory,  neither  Satan, 
or  any  other  created  agent  in  heaven  or  earth,  no  mo¬ 
tive,  no  second  cause  can  move  the  mind  of  man  to 
the  least  inclination  or  choice.  Nothing  but  the 
immediate  agency  of  God  alone  can  do  this.  How 
strong  and  expressive  are  the  terms  of  Mr.  W.  to  ex¬ 
clude  all  creature  agency  in  the  business.  He  not 
only  says,  it  is  the  immediate  agency  of  God,  but  that 
alone ,  i.  e.  without  any  instrument  or  second  cause 
having  any  efficacy  in  the  affair. 

3.  This  theory  is  doing  violence  to  the  universal 
opinion  of  mankind  and  the  dictates  of  common 
sense. 

To  make  this  appear  we  will  state  a  case. — Suppose 
a  man  in  full  possession  of  health  and  reason  accident¬ 
ally  stumbles  and  falls  with  one  hand  into  a  kettle  of 
boiling  lead,  and  is  left  entirely  to  his  own  choice 
whether  he  will  take  it  out  or  not.  Now  is  it 

#5 


54 


SECTION  IV. 


common  sense  to  say,  the  pain  he  will  experience,  the 
love  of  life,  a  sense  of  duty,  and  all  other  considera¬ 
tions,  or  motives  that  can  operate  upon  him,  are  ut¬ 
terly  insufficient  to  excite  in  him  a  wish  to  withdraw' 
his  arm  from  the  burning  metal?  There  he  will  con¬ 
tinue  to  burn  and  fry  and  endure  all  the  agonies  he 
must  feel,  without  a  wish  for  relief,  till  God  by  his 
own  immediate  agency  excites  it  in  his  heart?  This  is 
certainly  true  if  it  is  the  immediate  agency  of  God 
alone  that  can  move  the  mind  in  any  case  to  choose; 
hut  this,  if  ever  any  thing  did*  shocks  all  common 
sense. 

4.  It  is  unphilosopliical  as  it  insists  upon  more 
causes,  as  necessary  to  produce  the  effect,  than  are 
in  reality  needed.  Suppose  a  man  should  see  a  rock 
of  a  ton  weight  fall  upon  a  fly,  and  a  question  should 
he  started,  how  that  insect  came  by  his  death,  would 
it  be  philosophical  for  him  to  insist  upon  some  other 
cause  being  assigned  to  produce  the  effect?  Suppose 
lie  should  say  it  is  not  sufficient  to  account  for  the 
phenomenon,  that  God  created  and  upheld  the  fly, 
such  a  frail  being,  and  gave  solidity,  extension  and 
gravitation  to  the  rock,  and  by  an  earthquake  caused 
its  fall;  over  and  above  all  this,  he  must  have  struck 
the  insect  w  ith  a  flash  of  lightning,  or  destroyed  him 
by  his  own  immediate  agency.  Now  it  is  certain 
this  reasoning  deserves  just  as  much  respect  as  that 
of  Mr.  Weeks  in  the  case  of  the  man’s  falling  into  the 
kettle  of  lead,  that  he  could  not,  by  all  possible 
motives  or  second  causes  that  would  operate  upon 
him  in  that  situation,  be  excited  to  wish  for  relief. 
To  account  for  the  event,  nothing  but  the  immediate 
agency  of  God  alone  could  be  sufficient.  Upon  the 
present  constitution  of  tilings  in  this  world,  this  must 
ever  appear  a  flagrant  outrage  to  the  very  first 
principles  of  human  knowledge. 

5.  Under  the  notion  of  exalting  the  agency  of  God, 
the  theory  under  consideration  destroys  the  idea  of 
God’s  having  any  real  and  proper  creation  at  all? 


SECTION  IT. 


55 


What  is  creation?  It  is  a  system  of  things  not  mere¬ 
ly  ideal  but  real,  in  which  every  creature  is  endowed 
with  its  own  peculiar  properties,  faculties,  powers, 
energies,  activity,  &c.  And  the  substance  and  powers 
and  actions  of  these  creatures,  are  perfectly  distinct 
from  the  divine  essence  and  attributes. 

The  work  of  Providence  is  God’s  all  wise  and 
powerful  preserving  and  governing  this  system  of 
creatures  with  all  their  actions.  But  more  philo¬ 
sophers  than  one  have  in  effect  destroyed  this  idea  of 
creation  by  their  absurd  theories.  Did  not  Dean 
Berkley  do  this  by  affirming,  that  creation  has  no 
existence  but  in  the  internal  preceptions  or  ideas  of 
a  rational  mind? 

Did  not  Mr.  Edwards  do  it  by  affirming,  that  in 
preservation  God  is  obliged  to  create  a  perfectly  new 
world  every  instant  of  time,  yea  as  perfectly  new  as 
if  none  had  ever  existed  before? 

So  does  Mr.  Weeks  in  effect  destroy  it,  by  abol¬ 
ishing  the  agency  and  influence  of  all  second  causes 
in  the  moral  system.  A  system  in  which  angels, 
men  and  devils,  have  no  power  in  the  hand  and  Prov¬ 
idence  of  God  to  produce  any  impressions  or  moral 
effects  on  their  own  minds,  or  the  minds  of  others; 
is  a  perfectly  different  system  of  creation  from  that, 
which  God  has  actually  brought  into  being  and  daily 
upholds,  and  governs. 

6.  It  is  unpiiilosophical  as  it  tends  to  destroy  all 
real  and  rational  philosophy.  To  trace  out  the  na¬ 
ture  of  things,  their  mutual  relations  and  dependence, 
and  the  energy  or  activity  they  have  to  produce  ef¬ 
fects,  and  to  frame  rules  and  systems  for  the  applica¬ 
tion  and  direction  of  these  energies  to  benevolent 
and  useful  purposes,  is  the  substance  of  all  philosophy 
worthy  our  notice.  But  if  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
created  objects  or  agents  being  endowed  and  upheld 
with  powers  adequate  to  the  production  of,  not  only, 
no  natural,  but  moral  effects;  if  all  is  mere  divine 
agency;  if  in  the  nature  of  things  the  fall  of  a  feath¬ 
er  is  as  much  fitted  to  destroy  a  man  as  the  fall  of  a 


56 


3ECTI0N  IV. 


mountain,  all  inquiry  after  second  causes  is  an  ab¬ 
surd  thing, — for  no  such  thing  exists.  All  we  have  to 
say  to  explain  the  most  wonderful  and  useful  phenom¬ 
ena  is, — so  God  hath  wrought.  This  indeed  in  con¬ 
nexion  with  a  proper  view  of  the  nature  and  depend¬ 
ence  of  all  tilings  upon  the  great  First  Cause,  is  the 
just  language  of  piety,  but  it  surely  is  not  the  whole 
of  philosophy  investigating  the  nature  of  the  works 
of  God.  For  God  is  not  only  possessed  in  his  own 
nature,  of  infinite  wisdom  and  activity,  and  has  his 
uniform  and  established  modes  of  operation;  but 
lie  has  given  to  creatures  their  proper  energies  and 
activity  and  ordained  their  modes  of  influence 
and  operation.  Hence  it  is  believed  that  the  laws  of 
nature  may  be  something  more  than  simply  a  uniform 
mode  of  divine  operation.  It  may  be  the  mode 
of  operation  assigned  to  imparted  powers  and 
energies,  upheld,  directed  and  governed  by  the  infi¬ 
nite  wisdom  and  power  of  the  great  First  Cause. 
Our  ignorance  of  what  are  the  laws  of  nature  and 
the  mode  of  their  operation,  is  no  sufficient  founda¬ 
tion,  on  which  to  deny  the  reality  of  their  existence. 

To  this  section  we  will  subjoin  an  extract  from 
the  Works  of  Dr  Dwight,  late  President  of  Yale 
College. 

Though  nothing  like  infallibility  is  to  be  attrib¬ 
uted  to  the  opinions  of  any  mere  man,  yet  I  am 
happy  to  be  able  to  strengthen  my  own  views  by  the 
authority  of  one,  whose  name  will  ever  shine  with  a 
distinguished  lustre  in  the  annals  of  the  literature 
and  religion  of  my  own  native  State. 

“That  God,  by  an  immediate  agency  of  his  own, 
creates  the  sinful  volitions  of  mankind,  is  a  doctrine 
not  warranted,  in  my  view,  either  by  reason  or  rev¬ 
elation.” 

After  disclaiming  all  idea  of  imputing  evil  designs 
to  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine,  and  admitting  the 
proofs  of  their  piety,  he  further  observes; 

“Still  I  cannot  accord  with  this  doctrine,  nor  hes¬ 
itate  to  believe,  that  they  have  in  several  instances, 
darkened  counsel  by  words  without  knowledge.” 


SECTION  IV. 


57 


“The  theology  of  a  part  of  this  country  appears  to 
me  to  be  verging,  insensibly,  perhaps  to  those  who 
are  chiefly  concerned,  but  with  no  very  gradual  step 
towards  a  Pantheism,  differing  materially,  in  one 
particular  only,  from  that  of  Spinosa.  He  held  that 
the  universe,  which  he  supposed  to  be  matter,  and 
which  he  divided  into  cogitative  or  intelligent,  and 
incogitative,  was  God;  and  that  the  several  parts  of 
it  were  no  other  than  separate  parts  of  the  same 
great  and  universal  Being.  Thus  he  excluded  the 
existence  of  all  creatures;  and  of  any  work  of  cre¬ 
ation,  as  well  as  all  that,  which  is  usually  meant  by 
the  Providence  and  Government  of  the  Creator. 
The  theology,  to  which  I  have  referred,  teaches  that 
God  is  immaterial,  intelligent  and  infinite;  but  de¬ 
nies  with  Spinosa,  the  existence  of  finite  intelligent 
beings,  as  well  as  of  those,  which  we  call  bodies; 
declaring  that  what  men  usually  call  minds,  or 
spirits,  are  no  other  than  continued  chains,  or  suc¬ 
cessions  of  ideas  and  exercises  created  immediately 
by  the  infinite  Mind.”  Hr.  D.’s  Works,  vol.  i,  pp. 
£45,  £46. 

This  coincidence  of  Dr.  D/s  views  with  my  own, 
is  the  more  striking  to  me,  as  I  had  made  up  my 
mind  on  the  subject,  and  written  this  section  before 
I  had  ever  heard  or  read  what  he  has  said  upon  it. 
It  goes  to  prove  that  there  is  something  in  this  theol¬ 
ogy,  that  appears  to  different  minds  to  deny  the  real 
and  proper  existence  of  created  agents. 


SECTION  V 


TEXTS  WHICH  SOLEMNLY  WARN  US,  NOT  TO  AS- 
CRIBE  TO  GOD,  OUR  BEING  INWARDLY  EXCITED 
AND  MOVED  TO  IMPIETY  AND  WICKEDNESS. 


JAMES  I,  13,  14. 

tfLet  no  man  say  when  he  is  tempted ,  I  am  tempted 
of  God,  for  God  cannot  he  tempted  with  evil;  neither 
tempteth  he  any  man .  But  every  man  is  tempted , 
when  he  is  drawn  away  of  his  own  lusts  and 
enticed 

To  tempt,  sometimes  signifies  to  try,  in  order  to 
discover  the  disposition  of  a  person,  or  to  improve 
his  virtue;  and  that  by  calling  him  to  self-denying 
and  painful  duties,  or  subjecting  him  to  privations, 
dangers  and  afflictions.  In  this  sense  God  is  said 
to  have  tempted  Abraham  and  the  Israelites.  In 
the  passage  under  consideration,  the  term  must  cer¬ 
tainly  be  intended  in  a  different  sense,  otherwise  the 
Spirit  of  inspiration  would  contradict  himself.  And 
what  can  this  sense  be  but  this,  God  does  not  out¬ 
wardly  entice,  nor  inwardly,  by  a  direct  operation  on 
the  heart,  move,  incline,  or  draw  away  men  to  sin. 

To  confirm  this  exposition,  the  following  argu¬ 
ments  seem  to  be  decisive. — 1.  The  sense,  in  which 


SECTION  Y. 


59 


the  apostle  meant  to  clear  God  of  tempting  men  to 
sin,  is  that,  in  which  it  is  impossible  he  himself 
should  be  tempted.  This  is  tbe  obvious  import  of 
the  words,  “God  cannot  be  tempted  with  evil,  neither 
tempteth  he  any  man.”  But  God  is  tempted  by  sin¬ 
ners  in  every  other  way  possible  to  his  impassible 
nature,  except  being  actually  inclined  to  sin. — This 
then  is  the  point  asserted.  As  God  cannot  be  in¬ 
wardly  moved,  or  inclined  to  sin,  so  neither  dues  he 
inwardly  excite  or  incline  any  man  to  it. 

2.  The  apostle  expressly  states  what  he  here 
means  by  tempting:  it  is  being  actually  inclined  or 
drawn  away  to  sin. — “But  every  man  is  tempted 
when  he  is  drawn  away  of  his  own  lust  and  enticed. 
This  actual  inclination,  or  being  drawn  away  to  sin, 
which  he  ascribes  to  man’s  own  lust  as  the  cause,  is 
the  kind  of  tempting  he  solemnly  warns  every  man 
not  to  impute  to  God  as  the  direct  efficient  cause. 

3.  The  apostle’s  argument  requires  this  construc¬ 
tion  of  his  words.  There  either  then  was  a  class  of 
men,  who,  to  excuse  or  palliate  their  iniquities,  pre¬ 
tended  that  God  tempted,  solicited,  inclined,  or  in¬ 
wardly  moved  them  to  all  the  wickedness  they  per¬ 
petrated,  or  it  was  foreseen  that  such  mistaken  and 
deluded  men  would  arise  at  some  future  period.  If 
neither  of  these  is  true,  then  the  text  is  impertinent 
and  useless. — But  the  very  existence  of  such  a  warn¬ 
ing  in  sacred  writ,  implies  the  existence  of  such  un¬ 
godly  men. — And  the  fact  is,  such  men  did  actually 
infest  the  Church  at  an  earl}  period.  History  re¬ 
cords  at  least  one  instance  of  excommunication  for 
this  offence.  They  are  mentioned  by  several  writers. 
Macknight  in  his  view  and  illustration  of  the  ex¬ 
hortations  contained  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Epis¬ 
tle  of  James,  passing  from  the  1 2th  to  the  13th  verse, 
says,  “The  apostle  next  directed  his  discourse  to  the 
unbelieving  part  of  the  nation,  (Jews,)  and  expressly 
condemned  that  impious  notion,  by  which  many  of 
them,  and  even  some  of  the  Judaizing  teachers 
among  the  Christians,  pretended  to  vindicate  their 


60 


SECTION  Y. 


worst  actions,  namely,  that  God  tempts  men  to  sin, 
and  is  the  author  of  the  sinful  actions  to  which  he 
tempts  them.” 

Now  we  must  suppose  the  apostle  not  to  reason 
impertinently.  He  undoubtedly  in  saying  God 
tempts  no  man,  supposed  he  had  cut  off  all  ground 
for  such  an  allegation.  But  is  it  possible  to  suppose 
he  would  have  thought  so,  if  he  had  really  believed, 
that  God  did,  by  a  direct  operation  on  the  heart  of 
sinners,  move,  incline,  and  draw  them  away  to  every 
abomination  with  which  they  defile  themselves? — Or 
had  he  admitted  the  reality  and  truth  of  such  a  di¬ 
vine  operation,  could  he  justly  have  hoped  to  have 
silenced  the  objector?  Is  it  possible  to  suppose  lie 
could  have  imagined  this  caution  would  have  been 
saying  any  thing  to  the  purpose,  “Let  no  man  say 
when  he  is  tempted  I  am  tempted  of  God,”  if  he 
had  really  believed  that  God,  by  a  direct  operation 
on  the  heart,  did  move  wicked  men  to  all  the  evil 
they  commit? 

4.  The  mode  of  the  apostle’s  reasoning,  it  must 
seem,  would  have  been  very  different,  had  he  ever 
imbibed  the  sentiment  which  we  are  called  to  can¬ 
vass.— -Dr.  Emmons,  in  his  Sermon  on  Exod.  ix,  16, 
hath  these  words  respecting  the  agency  of  God  in 
hardening  the  heart  of  Pharaoh.  “He  determined 
to  operate  on  his  heart  itself. — When  Moses  called 
upon  him  to  let  the  people  go,  God  stood  by  him, 
and  moved  him  to  refuse.  When  Moses  interceded 
for  him  and  procured  him  respite,  God  stood  by  him 
and  moved  him  to  exult  in  his  obstinacy.  Wrhen  the 
people  departed  from  his,  kingdom,  God  stood  by 
him,  and  moved  him  to  pursue  after  them  with  in¬ 
creased  malice  and  revenge.” — Here  I  would  query, 
if  a  person  should  come  to  the  Doctor,  and  say,  “God 
tempts,  inclines,  moves,  and  draws  me  away  to  all 
the  pride,  malice,  and  wickedness,  of  which  I  ever 
was  or  ever  can  be  chargeable,  I  am  therefore  not 
at  all  guilty  for  any  crime  I  ever  commit;”  would 
the  Doctor  think  it  a  sufficient  answer,  to  say  to 


■■■ 


SECTION  Vr 


61 


this  objector,  “Let  no  man  say  when  he  is  tempted, 
I  am  tempted  of  God,  for  God  cannot  be  tempted  of 
evil;  neither  tempteth  he  any  man?”  No;  his  rea¬ 
soning  would  have  been  of  a  very  different  cast. — 
He  would  have  admitted  the  fact,  that  God  did  stand 
by  him,  and  by  a  direct  operation  on  his  heart  move 
him  to  all  the  sin  he  ever  committed;  and  he  would 
then  have  gone  about  to  prove,  that  this  neither  con¬ 
stituted  any  apology  for  his  sin,  nor  reflected  any 
dishonor  upon  the  divine  holiness. — But  the  apostle 
undertakes  nothing  of  the  kind.  The  difference 
between  the  reasoning  of  the  Doctor  and  the  apostle, 
seems  to  be  this;  The  latter  utterly  denies  the  fact 
as  an  impious  falsehood.  The  former  admits  it  as 
an  unquestionable  truth,  and  is  concerned  only  to 
vindicate  the  divine  character,  and  to  shut  up  the 
mouth  of  the  objector  in  another  way. — This  to  me 
amounts  at  least  to  a  very  strong  presumption,  that 
the  inspired  apostle  and  the  Doctor  are  of  very  op¬ 
posite  sentiments  in  regard  to  this  subject.  Let  us 
incorporate  the  sentiment  we  call  in  question  with 
the  words  of  the  apostle,  and  then  we  will  leave  it 
to  the  judgment  of  any  plain  man,  of  sound  sense 
and  discretion,  to  say,  whether  it  is  possible  to  be¬ 
lieve  it  ever  made  any  part  of  the  apostolical  creed.— 
“Let  no  man  say,  when  he  is  tempted  or  drawn 
away  to  sin,  I  am  tempted  of  God;  for  although  I 
believe,  that  neither  Satan,  nor  any  external  mo¬ 
tives,  nor  instrumentality  of  second  causes,  hath 
any  power  to  raise  up  in  sinners  any  wicked  exer¬ 
cise,  unless  God  operate  on  the  heart  itself,  to  move, 
incline,  and  draw  it  away  to  sin;  yet  I  know  very 
well,  that  God  cannot  be  tempted  with  evil,  neither 
tempteth  he  any  man.  For  then  is  a  mart  tempted, 
when  he  is  drawn  away  of  his  own  lusts,  which 
lusts,  it  is  true,  could  have  no  existence  in  his  heart, 
if  God  did  not,  by  an  immediate  positive  efficiency, 
create  them,  or  produce  and  bring  them  into  being; 
and  enticed  by  the  allurements  of  external  objects, 
and  the  false  reasonings  suggested  by  Satan,  all 
6 


62 


SECTION  V. 


which,  however,  would  never  be  sufficient,  without 
this  positive  divine  agency,  to  excite  one  wicked 
lust  in  the  sinner’s  heart.” — Had  the  apostle  believ¬ 
ed  the  sentiment  we  oppose,  this  paraphrase  is  per¬ 
fectly  just.  And  then,  as  to  the  solidity  of  his 
reasoning,  or  exhortation,  or  admonition,  there  can, 
I  think,  be  but  one  opinion. — James  i,  16,  17.  “Do 
not  err,  my  beloved  Brethren.  Every  good  gift 
and  every  perfect  gift,  is  from  above,  and  cometh 
down  from  the  Father  of  lights,  with  whom  is  no 
variableness,  neither  shadow'  of  turning.” 

The  apostle  here  directs  his  discourse  more  par¬ 
ticularly  to  the  really  upright  and  godly;  but  what 
is  the  error  against  which  he  cautions  them? 

No  doubt  it  is  the  one  just  mentioned,  of  imput¬ 
ing  to  a  divine  influence,  our  being  enticed  and 
draw  n  away  to  sin.  This  seems  sufficiently  evident 
by  his  immediately  adding,  what  appeared  to  him 
the  truth,  in  opposition  to  this  error. — Dr.  Mack- 
night’s  paraphrase  is,  therefore,  very  just. — “Be 
not  deceived,  my  beloved  brethren,  into  the  belief, 
that  God  is  the  author  of  sin.  So  far  is  God  from 
seducing  men  to  sin,  (i.  e.  by  outward  enticements, 
or  an  inward  operation  on  the  heart,)  that  every 
good  gift,  whether  it  be  our  reasonable  faculties,  or 
virtuous  dispositions,  or  outward  happy  circumstan¬ 
ces,  and  every  perfect  gift,  pardon  of  sin,  the  favor 
of  God,  and  eternal  life,  is  from  above,  descending 
from  God,  the  author  of  all  virtue  and  happiness, 
with  whom  there  is  no  variableness  nor  shadow  of 
turning.” 

James  iii,  14 — 17.  “But  if  ye  have  bitter  envy¬ 
ing  and  strife  in  your  hearts,  glory  not  and  lie  not 
against  the  truth.  This  wisdom  descendeth  not 
from  above,  but  is  earthly,  sensual,  devilish.  For 
where  envying  and  strife  is,  there  is  confusion  and 
every  evil  work.  But  the  wisdom  that  is  from 
above,  is  first  pure,  then  peaceable,  gentle,  and  easy 
to  be  intreated,  full  of  mercy  and  good  fruits,  without 
partiality,  and  without  hypocrisy.”  Here  is  two 


SECTION  V. 


63 


kinds  of  wisdom  mentioned,  one  is  holiness,  the 
other  is  sin. — One  of  these,  the  Spirit  of  God  by 
the  apostle,  declares  is  from  above;  and  the  other  is 
not.  Now  the  principal  question  is,  what  is  meant 
by  the  phrase,  “from  above.’5 

I  do  not  remember  of  ever  hearing,  among  pious 
and  godly  Christians,  any  doubt  suggested  as  to  its 
import.  It  seems  to  be  as  plain  and  easy  to  be  un¬ 
derstood,  as  any  expression  in  language.  If  any 
man  has  a  doubt,  be  must  have  stumbled  upon  if, 
through  the  influence  of  some  favorite  system.  In 
chap,  i,  16,  the  apostle  says,  “Every  good  gift  ami 
every  perfect  gift  is  from  above,55  and  explains 
what  lie  means  by  these  words,  by  adding,  “and  com- 
eth  down  from  the  Father  of  lights.55  And  is  not 
the  meaning  precisely  the  same  in  the  words  before 
us?  And  might  not  the  same  excgctical  clause  be 
here  added,  “Tills  wisdom  dcscendeth  not  from 
above,  it  cometh  not  down  from  the  Father  of 
lights.55  Is  not  this  then  the  declaration  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  that  holiness  cometh  from  God,  but  sin  does 
not?  Is  not  this  the  natural  unconstrained  sense? 
Has  the  church  of  God  ever  viewed  the  matter  in  a 
different  light? — Now  who  can  possibly  believe,  that 
while  the  apostle  discoursed  in  this  manner  to  his 
brethren,  he  confidently  believed,  at  the  same  time, 
that  sin  and  wickedness  did  as  much  proceed  from 
an  inward  divine  operation  on  the  heart,  as  holi¬ 
ness?  By  saying  that  the  wisdom  Jhat  dcscendeth 
from  above  is  first  pure,  &c.  what  does  he  mean  but 
that  God  is  the  author,  the  producer  by  an  inward 
operation  on  the  heart,  of  all  holy  exercises?  And 
when  he  uses  the  same  phrase  in  a  negative  sense, 
in  regard  to  sin  and  wickedness,  what  reasonable 
ground  of  doubt  can  there  be,  but  that  his  object  is, 
to  teach  men,  that  their  evil  exercises  and  wicked 
lusts,  are  not  produced  in  them  by  the  same  agency? 

With  plain  sensible  men,  this  will,  no  doubt,  stand 
as  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  apostle  to  the  end  of 
the  world;  and  that,  in  spite  of  all  labored  criticism  ; 


(54 


SECTION  V. 


and  strained  comments  to  the  contrary. — But  what 
is  the  glorying  and  lying  against  the  truth,  here 
forbidden?  “But  if  ye  have  bitter  envying  and 
strife  in  your  hearts,  glory  not  and  lie  not  against 
the  truth.” — Glory  not,  as  though  ye  were  the  real 
followers  of  Christ.  Glory  not,  as  though  any  apol¬ 
ogy  or  excuse  for  such  a  perverse  temper  and  con¬ 
duct  could  be  framed. — And  least  of  all,  do  not  so 
belie  the  truth,  as  to  say,  God  inwardly  moves,  or 
outwardly  entices  you,  to  these  abominable  impieties 
and  crimes.  For  this  wisdom  descendeth  not  from 
above,  cometh  not  down  from  the  Father  of  lights. 
It  is  not  to  be  considered  as  God  working  in  yop. 


SECTION  VI. 


TEXTS,  WHICH  POSITIVELY  DECLARE,  THAT  MORAL 
EVIL  DOES  NOT  COME  FROM  GOD. 


Here  we  might  repeat  James  iii,  14,  where  it  is 
most  solemnly  declared  of  bitter  envyiugs  and  strifes 
in  the  heart,  that  this  wisdom  descendeth  not  from 
above,  if  this  text  does  not  deny  the  theory  in 
question,  I  know  not  how  any  languagecan  be  suffi¬ 
ciently  definite  to  do  it. 

1  John  ii,  16,  is  another  text,  the  plain  obvi¬ 
ous  sense  of  which  must  be  rejected,  or  the  doctrine 
under  consideration  must  be  relinquished.  “For  all 
that  is  in  the  world,  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  and  the  lust 
of  the  eyes,  and  the  pride  of  life,  is  not  of  the  Father, 
but  is  of  the  world.”  In  these  words,  the  whole 
body  of  sin,  every  corrupt  affection,  every  sinful  de¬ 
sire  and  practice,  is  comprehended.  In  what  sense 
did  the  apostle  mean  to  assert,  these  were  not  of  the 
Father?  * 

Our  opponents  will  say,  he  did  not  intend  to  assert, 
that  God  did  not  directly  by  an  inward  and  positive 
influence  move  the  heart  of  sinners  to  all  these  im¬ 
pious  propensities  and  lusts?  What  then  does  he 
#6 


SECTION  VI. 


66 

mean?  They  will  not  say,  he  meant  to  deny  that  God 
from  everlasting,  purposed  their  existence,  that  lie 
did  not  order  things  in  such  manner  in  his  holy  Prov¬ 
idence,  as  that  men  would  be  defiled  by  these  lusts? 
Nor  will  any  one  pretend  all  the  apostle  had  in  view 
was  to  assert,  that  God  did  not  command  them.  For 
if  this  exposition  were  true,  it  would  seem  to  follow, 
that  wiien  holy  exercises  are  said  to  be  of  God,  all 
that  is  intended,  is  that  he  requires  such  exercises  in 
his  law* 

Nor  can  we  imagine  any  one  would  say,  all  that  is 
meant  by  these  sinful  propensities,  not  being  of  God, 
is,  that  he  does  not  approve  of  them,  as  excellent  and 
good.  For  certainly  something  more  is  intended, 
than  mere  approbation  of  their  gracious  exercises, 
w  hen  saints  are  said  to  be  of  God,  and  to  be  born  of 
God,  and  their  wisdom  to  be  from  above. 

According  to  the  plain  sense  of  the  passage,  it  is  to 
be  taken  as  the  perfect  opposite  of  Phil,  ii,  13.  “For 
it  is  God,  who  worketh  in  you,  both  to  will  and  to  do 
of  his  good  pleasure,”  i.  e.  “It  is  not  the  Father  who 
worketh  in  you  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  the  lust  of  the 
eyes,  and  the  pride  of  life.”  This  is  a  plain  and  im¬ 
portant  sense.  To  put  a  different  construction  on  the 
passage  will  require  such  an  effort,  such  refinement, 
such  a  strained  or  imperfect  sense  as  will  make  it  ev¬ 
ident,  the  expositor  finds  the  text  hostile  to  a  favorite 
system. 

According  to  the  theory  we  oppose,  this  passage  in 
John  should  be  thus  expounded.  Brethren,  it  is  a 
plain  truth,  that  whatever  be  the  power  and  influence 
of  the  devil  upon  the  hearts  of  men,  or  of  motives, 
or  other  instrumental  causes,  they  cannot  go  so  far 
as  to  excite  in  the  most  depraved  hearts  a  single  un¬ 
holy  volition.  Such  a  volition  never  can  exist  unless 
produced  in  the  hearts  of  men  by  a  positive  divine 
efficiency,  so  that  wicked  men  are  moved  to  all  the 
evil  they  commit,  as  directly  by  the  power  of  God  as 
saints  are  to  the  exercise  of  faith,  love,  hope,  meek¬ 
ness,  &c. 


SECTION  VI. 


67 


Nevertheless  I  inculcate  upon  you  this  as  a  doc¬ 
trine  of  high  importance  to  be  believed,  that  all  that 
is  in  the  world,  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  the  lust  of  the 
eyes,  and  the  pride  of  life,  is  not  of  the  Father,  but 
is  of  the  world.  Now,  whatever  others  may  think,  f 
can  no  more  believe,  that  these  two  ideas  ever  existed 
together  in  the  mind  of  this  apostle,  than  I  can  be¬ 
lieve  he  was  an  infidel.  If  there  is  a  contradiction 
in  terms  and  ideas  this  seems  to  be  one;  “No  crimi¬ 
nal  lust  of  man  is  of  the  Father.”  “No  lust  of  man 
ever  yet  existed,  but  God  by  a  direct  operation  on  his 
heart,  excited  it  in  him.” 

1  Cor.  xiv,  33.  “For  God  is  not  the  author  of 
confusion,”  or  as  it  is  rendered  in  the  margin,  tumult 
or  inquietness,  “but  of  peace,  as  in  all  the  churches 
of  the  saints.” 

Here  by  confusion,  tumult,  or  inquietude,  moral 
evil  and  disorder  is  intended.  The  apostle  is  not 
surely  speaking  of  such  external  disorder  and  in¬ 
formality  in  Christian  assemblies  as  implies  nothing 
wrong  in  the  heart.  But  of  these  wrong  feelings, these 
corrupt  exercises,  he  utterly  denies  God  to  be  the  au¬ 
thor.*  Even  zealous  advocates  for  the  doctrine  of  a 
positive  efficiency,  if  for  a  moment  they  should  con¬ 
sider  these  two  texts,  free  from  the  influence  and  en- 
entanglements  of  system,  would,  it  should  seem,  nat¬ 
urally  and  unavoidably  run  into  the  sense  we  have 
given  of  them.  We  are  led  to  this  remark  by  the 
following  fact. 

Mr.  Seth  Williston,  a  respectable  and  pious  di¬ 
vine,  in  a  Sermon  on  the  Divine  Decrees,  hath  this  re¬ 
mark.  “The  Holy  One  of  Israel  is  at  an  infinite  re¬ 
move  from  being  a  sinner;  neither  would  I  say  that 
he  is  the  author  of  sin.  For  the  apostle  says,  “God 
is  not  the  author  of  confusion.”  But  having  gone 
thus  far,  the  idea  of  a  favorite  theory  came  into  view, 
and  the  credit  of  his  orthodoxy  with  some  might  be 
challenged.  To  ease  his  mind  in  this  respect,  he  im- 

*  “Non  enim  est  exagitationis  auctor  Deus.”  (Beza.) 


68 


SECTION  VI. 


mediately  adds  this  note  at  the  bottom  of  the  page. 
“What  is  here  said  against  calling  God  the  author  of 
sin,  is  not  designed  to  oppose  the  sentiment  advanced 
by  Dr.  Hopkins  and  others,  that  God  is  the  efficient 
cause  of  sin.”*  So  then,  Brother,  you  would  not 
presume  to  say,  God  is  the  author  of  sin,  but  you 
can  say  he  is  the  efficient  cause  of  it.  How  a  man 
would  quiet  his  feelings  to  say  the  latter  and  not  the 
former,  [  know  not.  And  wherein  lies  so  great  a 
distinction  between  author  and  efficient  cause,  I  have 
vet  to  learn. 

*  Williston’s  Doctrines  and  Expositions,  page  23. 


i 


/ 


SECTION  VII. 


THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES,  IN  WHICH  ALL 
HOLINESS  IN  SAINTS,  IS  ASCRIBED  TO  THE  AGENCY 
OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT,  NECESS  ARILY  EXCLUDES  THE 
IDEA  OF  A  DIRECT  INWARD  DIVINE  EFFICIENCY, 
IN  THE  PRODUCTION  OF  SINFUL  EXERCISES* 


This  argument,  which  seems  to  be  perfectly  deci¬ 
sive  of  the  question,  will  be  presented  to  view  in  four 
particulars. 

1.  A  number  of  texts,  in  which  the  causes  of  sin 
and  holiness  are  placed  in  such  contrast,  as  utterly 
forbids  their  being  considered  as  coming  alike  from 
a  direct  divine  influence. 

2.  The  positive  declaration  of  the  Bible,  that 
the  Spirit  of  God  does  not  dwell  in,  and  produce  evil 
exercises,  in  the  hearts  of  the  wicked. 

3.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  produce  sinful  ex¬ 
ercises  in  the  minds  of  the  wicked,  then  it  follows  as 
an  unavoidable  consequence,  that  it  is  done  by  no 
other  person  in  the  Holy  Trinity. 

4.  The  theory  under  consideration  appears  to 
be  a  great  corruption  of  the  Gospel,  as  it  confounds 
the  peculiar  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  produc¬ 
tion  of  holy  exercises,  with  the  physical,  or  gener¬ 
al  agency  of  God. 


70 


SECTION  YU. 


The  contrasts,  to  which 

Now  the  works  of  the  flesh  are 
manifest, which  are  these, adultery, 
fornication,  unclean  ness,  lascivi¬ 
ousness,  idolatry,  witchcraft,  ha¬ 
tred,  variance,  emulations,  wrath, 
strife,  sedition,  heresies,  murders, 
drunkenness,  revellings  and  such 
like.  Gal.  v,  IS — 23. 

The  field  is  the  world;  the  good 
seed  are  the  children  of  the  king¬ 
dom; 


When  a  strong  man  armed  keep- 
eth  his  palace,  his  goods  are  in 
peace. 


Lo  this  only  have  I  found,  that 
God  made  man  upright; 

For  thou  hast  made  him  a  little 
lower  than  the  angels,  and  crown¬ 
ed  him  with  glory,  and  honor. 
Psalm  viii,  5. 

Oh  Israel  thou  hast  destroyed 
thyself; 

Put  to  as  many  as  received  him 
to  them  gave  he  power  to  become 
the  sons  of  God;  who  were  born, 
not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of 
the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man, 
but  of  God.  Johni,  12,  13. 


If  we  love  one  another,  God 
dwellelh  in  us.  1  John  iv,  12. 

Whosoever  is  born  of  God  doth 
not  commit  sin,  for  his  seed  re- 
rnaineth  in  him;  and  he  cannot  sin, 
because  he  is  bom  of  God.  1  J  ohn 
iii,  9. 


Ye  are  of  God,  little  children, 
and  have  overcome  them,  because 
greater  is  he,  that  is  in  you,  than 
he  that  is  in  the  world.  1  John  iv,4. 


we  allude  are  such  as  these: 

But  the  fruit  of  the  spirit  is  love, 
joy,  peace,  long-suffering,  gentle¬ 
ness,  goodness,  faith,  meekness, 
temperance. 


But  the  tares  are  the  children 
of  the  wicked  one;  the  enemy 
that  sowed  them  is  the  devil. 
Matt,  xiii,  38. 

But  when  a  stronger  than  he 
shall  come  upon  him,  and  over¬ 
come  him,  he  takelh  from  him 
all  his  armor  wherein  he  trusted 
and  divideth  his  spoils.  Luke  xi, 
21,  22. 

But  they  have  sought  out  many 
inventions.  Eccl.  7. 

Wherefore  as  by  one  man,  sin 
entered  into  the  world,  and  death 
by  sin.  Rom.v,  12. 


But  in  me  is  thy  help!  Hosea 
ix,  13. 

But  if  our  Gospel  be  hid,  it  is  hid 
to  them  that  are  lost;  in  whom  the 
god  of  this  world  hath  blinded 
the  minds  of  them  that  believe  not, 
lest  the  light  of  the  glorious  Gos¬ 
pel  of  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of 
God,  should  shine  unto  them. 
2  Cor.  iv,  3,  4. 

He  that  committeth  sin,  is  of  the 
devil.  1  John  iii,  8. 

In  this  the  children  of  God  are 
manifest  and  the  children  of  the 
devil;  whosoever  doeth  not  right¬ 
eousness,  is  not  of  God;  neither  he 
that  loveth  not  his  brother.  1  John 
iii,  10. 

They  are  of  the  world, therefore 
speak  they  of  the  world,  and  the 
world  heareth  them.  1  John  iv,  5. 


SECTI05ST  VII. 


71 


But  we  forbear;  it  would  be  next  to  endless  to 
produce  all  the  contrasts  of  this  kind,  which  abound 
in  the  Bible. 

Here  permit  me  to  ask  a  few  plain  questions. 
How  can  an  upright  honest  man,  that  believes  the 
plain  obvious  sense  of  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  true, 
suffer  himself  to  be  so  seduced  by  metaphysical 
subtilties,  as  to  imagine,  that  the  meaning  intended 
to  be  conveyed  in  all  these  contrasts  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  this:  “All  holiness  and  all  the  wickedness 
of  men,  comes  alike  from  an  immediate,  inward  di¬ 
vine  influence.” 

If  God  works  in  one  as  directly  and  really  as  in 
the  other,  how  is  he  greater,  who  is  in  saints,  than  he 
that  is  in  the  world?  And  if  God  as  really  and  directly 
blinds  the  minds  of  those  who  are  lost,  as  he  gives 
power  to  believers  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  why 
is  one  effect  so  particularly  ascribed  to  God,  and  the 
other  to  the  devil? 

And  if  holiness  and  sin  come  alike  from  God,  why 
might  not  Hosea  ix,  13,  be  inverted  and  thus  read. 
“Oh  Israel,  I  have  destroyed  thee;  but  in  thyself  is 
thy  help!”  Indeed  l  have  heard  it  asserted  that,  read 
it  either  way,  and  it  is  equally  true.  So  long  as  we 
make  the  Bible  our  guide,  we  are  bound  to  believe 
that  philosophy  to  be  an  idle  invention  of  man, 
which  so  strongly  militates  against  the  plain  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  inspired  writers. 

2.  The  next  branch  of  the  argument  is,  the  pos¬ 
itive  declarations  of  the  Bible,  that  the  Spir  it  of  God 
does  not  dwell  in,  and  produce  evil  exercises  in  the 
hearts  of  the  wicked. 

And  can  any  passage  be  more  to  this  purpose  than 
Gal.  v,l8 — -23  .“But  if  ye  be  led  by  the  Spirit  ye  are 
not  under  the  law.  Now  the  works  of  the  flesh 
are  manifest,  which  are  these,  adultery,  fornica¬ 
tion,  uncleanness,  lasciviousness,  idolatry,  &c. — 
But  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  love,  joy,  peace,  long- 
suffering,  gentleness,  goodness,  faith,”  &c. 

Perhaps  a  doubt  never  yet  arose  in  the  mind  of 
any  intelligent  Christian,  unless  it  has  lately  been 


70 


SECTION  VII. 


excited  by  the  theory  under  examination,  whether 
Paul,  by  this  statement,  meant  to  lay  it  down  as  an 
unquestionable  fact,  that  no  sinful,  or  perverse  emo¬ 
tion,  is  the  effect  of  the  Spirit  of  God. — That  he 
produces  nothing  in  the  mind  of  man,  by  his  inward 
operations,  except  the  holy  and  virtuous  affections 
here  ascribed  to  him. — Nay,  instead  of  producing 
any  moral  effects  of  a  sinful  nature  in  the  minds  of 
wicked  men,  Paul  and  other  apostles,  do  not  admit 
that  they  have  the  Spirit  of  God  in  them  at  all.  In 
Rom.  viii,  9,  it  isjsaid,  “Now  if  any  man  have  not  the 
spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his.” 

The  Spirit  of  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  the 
same.  And  does  not  this  language  imply,  that  none 
but  real  saints  have  the  Spirit  of  God  working  in 
them.  Jude  also,  verse  19,  expressly  declares,  that 
wicked  men  have  not  the  spirit.  ‘‘These  be  they, 
which  separate  themselves,  sensual,  not  having  the 
spirit.”  The  words  “not  having  the  spirit,”  are 
equivalent  to  this  assertion.  ‘‘The  Spirit  of  God 
docs  not  produce  in  them  any  of  their  sinful  and 
abominable  exercises.”  Now, 

3.  This  plain  Scripture  doctrine, that  the  Spirit  is 
the  author  of  no  volitions  or  exercises,  but  such  as 
are  holy,  ought  in  our  view  to  be  perfectly  decisive 
as  to  the  question. 

The  most  zealous  advocates  for  this  new7  theory 
have  not  yet  become  bold  enough  to  assert,  in  un¬ 
qualified  terms,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  equally  the 
author  of  sin  in  God’s  enemies,  as  of  holiness  in  his 
friends.  But  if  the  Holy  Ghost  does  not  by  an  in¬ 
ward  operation,  produce  wickedness  in  them,  then  no 
other  person  in  the  divine  Trinity  does. — For  w  hen¬ 
ever  vve  speak  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
as  purely  divine  persons,  it  is  impossible  to  deny  any 
thing,  as  to  counsels  or  operations  in  relation  to  one 
person,  without  denying  it  of  the  others. — Nor  can 
we  ascribe  to  one  any  operation  or  effect,  without 
ascribing  it  at  the  same  time  to  the  other. 


SECTION  VII. 


73 

Thus  if  you  affirm,  that  God  the  Father  works  in 
sinners  to  will  and  to  do  evil,  you  necessarily  affirm 
the  same  thing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Or  if  you  deny, 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  produces  this  effect,  you 
necessarily  deny  that  the  Father  produces  it. 
For  although  one  person  in  the  Trinity  may  be 
represented  as  acting  a  more  official  and  prominent 
part,  in  some  particular  operations,  than  the  others; 
yet  they  cannot  he  represented  as  acting  separately 
and  independently  of  each  other.  This  would  be  to 
resolve  the  high  mystery  of  three  persons  in  the 
Godhead  into  three  distinct  Gods. 

Christ  lays  it  down  as  an  infallible  maxim,  that 
the  Son  cannot  act  independently  of  the  Father; 
nor  does  the  Father  perform  any  operation,  which 
the  Son  does  not  also  perform. 

His  words  are  these;  “I  say  unto  you,  (lie  Son 
can  do  nothing  of  himself,  but  what  he  seeth  the  Fa¬ 
ther  do;  for  what  things  soever  the  Father  doeth, 
these  also  doeth  the  Son  likewise.”  And  is  not  this 
equally  true  of  the  Holy  Spirit? 

May  it  not  be  affirmed  of  him,  He  doeth  nothing 
but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do;  and  whatsoever  the 
Father  doeth,  he  doeth  likewise.  This  remark  is 
confirmed  by  the  fact,  that  holy  exercises,  to  pro¬ 
duce  which  is  the  peculiar  work  of  the  Spirit,  are 
ascribed  indifferently  to  the  other  divine  persons . 

Paul  says,  “Now  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  are  these, 
love,  joy,  peace,  &c.”  But  John  uses  the  name  of 
God  as  equally  proper  and  says,  “If  we  Jove  one 
another  God  dwelleth  in  us.”  If  then  you  make  the 
Father  the  inward  author  of  all  wickedness,  you 
make  the  Holy  Ghost  equally  the  author  of  it. 
There  is,  I  imagine,  hut  one  way  to  evade  this  ar¬ 
gument;  and  that  is  to  make  a  distinction,  between 
the  Spirit  acting  in  his  appropriate  office,  and  acting 
as  God  in  a  more  general  sense.  This  seems  to  be 
the  idea  of  Mr.  Williston,  who,  in  a  Sermon  already 
quoted,  remarking  on  Jude  19,  “These  are  they 
who  separate  themselves,  sensual,  not  having  th© 

7 


SECTION  VII. 


74 

spirit,”  says,  “This  means  that  they  are  destitute  of 
holy  influences.”  The  spirit  in  his  office  as  sanctifier 
dwells  not  with  them.  Do  not  these  words  imply  that 
as  God,  the  spirit  might  dwell  with  them  and  move 
them  to  all  evil?  I  suppose  he  meant  to  be  so  under¬ 
stood. — But  here  I  would  reply,  that  the  term  appro¬ 
priate  office,  in  such  a.  wide  sense,  is  a  mere  invention 
ot  man.  No  one  person  in  the  Trinity  can  act  in 
such  a  manner,  under  any  name  or  in  any  office,  as 
to  render  what  he  does  not  imputable  to  him  as  God. 
Nor  can  he  do  any  thing  in  conjunction  with  the  oth¬ 
er  persons,  under  the  general  name  God,  which  is 
not  imputable  to  him,  when  spoken  of  as  a  distinct 
person.  Whatever  be  the  views  of  others,  to  me  it  ap¬ 
pears  trifling,  to  say,  the  third  person  in  the  Trinity, 
under  the  name  Holy  Ghost,  produces  in  men  noth¬ 
ing  but  holiness;  but  laying  down  this  name  and  tak¬ 
ing  up  that  of  God,  he  moves  them  to  all  wickedness. 

When  Paul  says  to  the  Galatians,  “The  spirit 
lusteth  against  the  flesh,  and  the  flesh  against  the 
spirit,  &c.”  is  this  his  plain  obvious  meaning;  that 
Jehovah  under  the  name  spirit,  excites  you  to  all 
goodness,  but  under  the  name  God,  he  at  the  same 
time  moves  you  to  all  the  sin  you  perceive  working 
in  your  members?  or  the  Holy  Ghost  moves  you 
to  all  that  is  good  under  this  title, but  the  same  Holy 
Ghost,  under  the  title  God,  moves  you  to  all  wicked¬ 
ness.  Such  kind  of  interpretations  of  Scripture  are 
to  me  monstrous,  and  blasphemous. 

Dr.  Hopkins  appears  to  have  foreseen  that  his  the¬ 
ory  would  involve  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  charge, 
of  not  only  producing  in  men,  virtue  and  goodness, 
but  impiety  and  wickedness. 

His  words  are  these;  “Though  it  be  as  expressly 
asserted  in  the  Scriptures,  that  God  has  determined 
the  existence  of  all  moral  evil,  and  does  by  his  own 
operation  and  agency,  cause  it  to  take  place,  as  it  is, 
that  true  virtue  and  holiness,  is  the  effect  of  divine 
operation;  yet  it  does  not  follow  from  this,  that  the 
manner  and  mode  of  divine  operation,  in  these  differ- 


SECTION  VII. 


**-  >* 
7  5 

ent  and  opposite  effects,  is  in  all  respects  the 
same.’" — But  this  observation  of  the  Doctor  is  a 
mere  palliative  to  the  imagination,  of  such  as  lie 
might  conceive  would  be  startled  at  his  theory. — -For 
after  having  asserted  that  no  second  causes  or  mo¬ 
tives  excite  the  wills  of  men  to  choose  evil,  but  the 
positive  and  direct  agency  of  God,  to  what  can  it 
amount?  He  has  made  the  two  cases  of  producing 
sin  and  holiness  perfectly  the  same,  so  far  as  we  can 
have  any  ideas  respecting  the  subject.  This  pallia¬ 
tive  is  not  worth  a  straw. — It  relates  to  something, 
with  which  our  present  discussion  has  no  concern. 
It  is  not  the  inode  of  such  a  direct  operation,  but 
the  operation  itself  we  deny. 

4.  The  theory  under  consideration,  appears  to  be 
a  great  corruption  of  the  Gospel,  as  it  confounds 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  hearts  of  saints 
with  the  physical  or  general  agency  of  God.  By  this 
agency  all  things  were  originally  created,  organ¬ 
ized  and  constituted,  what  they  are  in  all  their  vast 
variety,  and  by  it,  they  are  now  upheld  or  preserved 
in  their  different  natures,  properties,  powers,  facul¬ 
ties,  relations,  order  and  succession;  and  are  con¬ 
stantly  held  under  the  absolute  dominion  and  gov¬ 
ernment  of  Jehovah,  and  in  his  Providence,  so  di¬ 
rected  and  managed,  as  that  they  never  move  or  act, 
but  in  conformity  to  his  infinitely  wise  and  benevo¬ 
lent  designs.  To  this  physical  agency,  the  apostle  al¬ 
ludes  in  these  words.  “For  in  him  we  live,  move,  (or 
are  moved,)  and  have  our  being.”  And  it  is  in  respect 
to  the  same  agency,  God  thus  speaks  in  the  prophet. 
“I  form  the  light  and  create  darkness;  I  make  peace 
and  create  evil;  I  the  Lord  do  all  these  things.”  In 
regard  to  this  kind  of  agency,  all  objects  in  the  uni¬ 
verse  are  equally  dependent.  The  largest  globe, 
and  the  smallest  atom,  the  highest  seraph,  and  the 
meanest  insect,  the  most  perfect  saint,  and  the  vilest 
sinner,  the  brightest  angel,  and  the  blackest  devil,  all 
here  stand  upon  a  level.” 


76 


SECTION  VII. 


Out  can  the  Gospel  be  understood,  by  those,  who 
have  no  idea  of  any  other  divine  agency  but  this? 
Js  it  not  the  peculiar  glory  of  this  system  of 
Grace  arid  Salvation,  that  it  reveals  an  agency  or  in¬ 
fluence,  by  which  sinners  are  converted,  sanctified, 
and  prepared  for  endless  felicity? — The  object  of 
this  agency  is  not  to  create  or  uphold  creatures  in 
being,  but  purely  to  operate  upon  their  moral  and  ac¬ 
tive  powers,  and  excite  them  to  will  and  to  do  that 
which  is  just  and  good. 

If,  over  and  above  the  general  agency  of  God,  the 
Gospel  did  not  bring  into  view  the  Holy  Ghost,  as 
exerting  this  agency  upon  men  dead  in  trespasses 
and  sin,  it  would  be  devoid  of  one  essential  glory  as 
the  words  of  eternal  life. 

Now  this  latter  kind  of  agency,  must,  therefore, 
be  kept  distinct  from  the  former,  in  some  very  inter¬ 
esting  and  important  respects.  This  remark  is 
strongly  confirmed  by  various  considerations. 

1.  The  business  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  to  produce 
in  men  nothing  but  virtuous  and  holy  exercises. — I 
conceive  no  one  will,  in  an  unqualified  manner,  assert, 
that  pride,  blasphemy,  malice  and  spite,  are  the  effect 
of  the  direct  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the 
hearts  of  men. 

a.  It  is  expressly  asserted  in  the  Scriptures,  that 
the  world,  or  men,  who  remain  impenitent  and 
unbelieving,  have  not  this  Spirit  dwelling  in  them. 
«fAnd  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  be  shall  give  you 
another  Comforter,  that  he  may  abide  with  you  for¬ 
ever.  Even  the  Spirit  of  truth;  whom  the  world 
cannot  receive,  because  it  seeth  him  not,  neither 
knoweth  him:  but  ye  know  him,  for  he  dwelleth 
with  you,  and  shall  be  in  you.5’  John  xiv,  16,  17. 
Now  is  it  not  obvious  that  this  agency  of  the  Spirit 
is  here  distinguished  from  that  general  agency  of  God, 
which  extends  alike  to  all  created  objects,  and  of 
which  we  may  say  w  ith  Mr.  Pope.  It 


SECTION  VII. 


—  V 

i'i 


r(  Warms  in  the  sun,  refreshes  in  the  breeze. 

Glows  in  the  stars,  and  blossoms  in  the  trees, 

Lires  through  all  life,  extends  through  all  extent, 

Spreads  undivided,  operates  unspent.” 

An  influence,  which  is  confined  to  God’s  little  flock, 
or  extends  only  to  comparatively  a  very  few  objects 
in  the  creation,  cannot  be  the  same  with  that  which 
“extends  through  all  extent.” 

3.  If  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  distin¬ 
guished  from  the  physical  or  general  agency  of  God, 
then  it  will  follow  that  both  beasts,  sinners  of  man¬ 
kind,  and  devils,  have  the  Holy  Spirit  dwelling  in 
them: — For  it  is  declared  that  he  shall  dwell  in  saints 
forever. — And  if  this  is  the  same  as  that  general 
agency,  by  which  he  works  all  things  according  to 
the  counsel  of  his  own  will,”  it  must  apply  to  all 
created  objects,  both  good  and  evil;  for  in  God  they 
all  live,  move,  and  have  their  being.  But  who  will 
presume  to  say  that  the  Holy  Ghost  dwells  in  wild 
beasts,  wicked  men  and  devils,  just  as  much  as  in 
saints? 

Thus  we-seethe  Gospel  revelation  cannot  be  under¬ 
stood,  unless  ihe  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost  be  distin¬ 
guished  from  the  general  agency  of  God.— But  jn  what 
respects  is  the  former  to  be  considered  as  distinct 
from  the  latter?  if  the  Scriptures  make  a  distinction  it 
is  a  real  one;  it  is  not  merely  imaginary.  Upon  (he 
truth  of  this  we  mast  presume,  even  though  we  were 
utterly  unable  by  our  reason  to  trace  out  this  differ¬ 
ence.  For  it  may  be  like  ten  thousand  other  subjects 
above  the  reach  of  our  faculties,  at  least  in  the  pres¬ 
ent  state  of  our  existence. 

But  we  conceive  it  is  a  subject,  which  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  have  not  left  utterly  in  the  dark. 

1.  The  distinction  between  the  influence  of  the 
Divine  Spirit  and  the  general  agency  of  God,  does 
not  relate  merely  to  the  effect  produced. 

To  explain  Jude  19;  “These  be  they,  who  separ¬ 
ate  themselves,  sensual,  having  not  the  spirit.”  Mr. 
Williston  says, “They  are  not  the  subjects  of  holy  in¬ 
fluence.  The  spirit  does  not  dwell  in  them,  in  his 

#7 


78 


SECTION  VII. 


office  as  sanctifier.  His  theory  and  his  language  im¬ 
ply  that  he  might  dwell  in  them  as  an  agent,  and  be 
the  efficient  cause  or  direct  mover  of  their  hearts  to 
all  the  abominations  with  which  they  were  defiled.-— 
But  here  I  would  submit  it  to  the  judgment  of  every 
candid  and  serious  student  of  the  13ible,  whether  he 
can  believe  that  this  is  the  sense  in  whicli  Jude  in¬ 
tended  to  be  understood,  viz.  “The  Holy  Ghost 
does  not  dwell  in  these  sensual,  debauched  separa¬ 
tists,  to  sanctify  them,  or  to  excite  them  to  holy 
desires  and  actions, yet  as  God,  he  does  dwell  in  them, 
and  work  directly  on  their  hearts  to  move  them  to 
all  ungodliness?”  His  meaning  must  be,  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  dicL  not  dwell  in  them  as  an  agent  to 
produce  any  exercises  by  an  immediate  operation  on 
the  heart. 

2.  The  distinction  does  not  lie  in  this,  that  God 
the  Father  may  act  so  independently  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  that  he  could  produce  in  sinners  all  their 
evil  exercises,  and  yet  the  Holy  Spirit  have  no  agen¬ 
cy  in  it. — So  that  it  could  with  truth  be  said,  that  al¬ 
though  God  works  all  wickedness  in  men,  yet  the 
Spirit  works  no  evil  in  them,  but  good  only. 

For  as  we  have  already  stated,  the  several  persons 
in  the  Trinity  do  not  act  independently  of  each 
other. — What  one  does  the  others  do. — If  God  ex¬ 
cites  sinners  to  wickedness  by  a  direct  operation  on 
the  heart,  then  the  Holy  Spirit  does  the  same. 

S.  In  order  to  leave  to  the  Holy  Spirit  any  thing  to 
be  his  peculiar  work,  (here  must  be  something  to 
which  the  general  physical  agency  of  God  does  not 
extend.  For  in  this  general  agency  by  which  all 
things  were  originally  created,  and  are  now  upheld, 
directed  and  governed,  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  as 
one  God  with  the  Father.  \s  to  this  agency,  beasts, 
and  birds,  and  men,  and  devils,  live,  and  move,  and 
have  their  being,  as  much  in  God  the  Spirit,  as  in 
God  the  Father  or  Son.  But  the  peculiar  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  confined,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
to  saints.  If,  therefore,  there  is  not  a  sense  in  which 


SECTION  VII. 


79 


divine  agency  extends  to  saints  and  not  to  sinners  and 
devils  in  general,  (hen  there  neither  is,  nor  can  be 
any  sense  in  which  1  lie  Spi  it  dwells  with  them  and  not 
with  other  objects,  or  with  impenitent  sinners.  Now 
4.  What  is  this  peculiar  work,  which  God  per¬ 
forms  in  saints,  which  lie  does  not  perform  in 
carnal,  worldly  and  impenitent  minds? — If  he  per¬ 
forins  any  thing  in  the  former,  which  he  does  not  in 
the  latter,  then  the  work  of  the  spirit  in  saints  may 
be  a  peculiar  divine  work,  but  if  not,  it  is  not  a  di¬ 
vine  work  restricted  to  saints,  and  lays  no  foundation 
for  it  to  be  said  in  truth,  that  he  dwells  with  them, 
and  not  with  impenitent  sinners. — To  produce  in 
some  way  moral  exercises  in  saints,  is  not  this  pecul¬ 
iar  divine  work.—  For  it  is  said,  God  hardens  the 
heart  and  blinds  the  minds  of  sinners. — But  tSie  pe¬ 
culiar  appropriate  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  to  pro¬ 
duce  virtuous  and  holy  moral  exercises  in  saints  by  a 
direct  operation  on  the  heart.  To  produce  an  effect, 
to  which  no  means  or  second  causes  in  the  universe 
are  competent,  and  which  God  never  makes  compe¬ 
tent  to  this  purpose.  But  in  operating  to  harden  the 
hearts  of  men,  God  works  by  means  or  second  caus¬ 
es,  and  gives  to  these  means  a  power  competent  to  the 
effect,  without  any  such  direct  operation  on  the 
heart  of  sinners. — Here  then  we  find  a  peculiar  di¬ 
vine  work  to  be  performed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
though  the  other  persons  of  the  divine  Trinity  are 
included  in  the  operation  with  the  spirit,  yet  it  is  a 
peculiar  work,  a  work  which  God  performs  on  no 
other  object  in  creation.  And  here  we  also  see  how 
the  spirit  dwells  with  saints,  as  he  does  not  dwell  in 
any  irrational  object  or  unholy  and  reprobate  beings. 
For  no  heart  does  God  by  a  direct  operation  on  it, 
move  to  any  moral  exercises,  except  that  of  saints.— 
If  he  superintends,  restrains,  moves  and  governs, 
wicked  men  or  fallen  spirits,  turning  their  hearts 
what  way  he  pleases  as  the  rivers  of  water  are 
turned;  yet  it  is  not  in  the  same  way. — Now  this  dis- 


HO 


SECTION  VII. 


tinction  is  entirely  confounded  and  done  away  by 
the  theory  vve  oppose. 

Mr.  W.  R.  Weeks  in  p.  39,  of  his  Nine  Sermons, 
on  the  Decrees  and  Agency  of  God,  explodes  it  as  a 
great  error,  that  any  should  have  thought  it  “neces¬ 
sary,  that  God  should  put  forth  an  immediate  agency 
to  cause  all  the  good  actions  of  his  creatures,  but 
not  their  wicked  actions.” 

This  is  equal  to  a  positive  assertion  that  God  by 
his  immediate  agency  causes  not  only,  ail  the  virtu¬ 
ous  exercises  of  saints,  but  all  the  impious  exercises 
of  sinners  and  devils. 

Here  then  in  this  theory  all  rational  creatures  in 
the  universe,  both  good  and  evil,  are  placed  on  one 
common  level,  and  there  is  no  room  to  assert  that 
God  operates  in  one  more  than  another. 

It  is  nothing  peculiar  to  saints  that  God  should 
dwell  in  them  and  produce  their  exercises.  For  he 
docs  the  same  as  to  sinners, — As  God,  and  as  an 
agent,  sinners  have  the  Holy  Ghost  dwelling  in  them 
as  much  as  real  Christians. 

A  little  further  on  in  the  book  he  produces  a  num¬ 
erous  train  of  texts,  to  prove  that  God  by  his  imme¬ 
diate  agency,  works  all  things  in  the  natural  world, 
and  then  all  things  in  the  moral  world;  and  consid¬ 
ers  all  that  is  said  of  a  divine  agency  in  the  produc¬ 
tion  of -moral  evil,  as  intending  an  inward  direct  in¬ 
fluence  on  the  heart,  as  really  as  when  the  good  exer¬ 
cises  of  saints  are  ascribed  to  a  divine  influence. 
And  thus  resolves  all  the  influences  spoken  of  in  the 
Gospel  into  this  general  physical  agency  of  God. 
Now  if  this  be  the  case,  how  is  it  any  more  a  pecu¬ 
liar  work  of  God  to  produce  holiness  in  good  men, 
than  sin  in  wicked  men? 

The  Christian  world  have  hitherto  supposed  God 
dwelt  in  a  peculiar  manner  in  saints,  but  Mr.  Weeks 
Isas  found  them  all  to  be  in  a  mistake,  for  lie  works 
in  sinners,  just  as  really  and  directly  as  in  saints. 
And  there  is  not  the  least  possible  ground  for  James 
to  affirm  that  true  wisdom  cometh  from  above,  while 


SECTION  VII. 


81 


the  impious  wisdom  of  sinners  cometli  not  from 
above.  Nor  is  there  the  least  possible  ground  for  the 
distinction  that  Paul  makes,  when  lie  ascribes  all  vir¬ 
tuous  and  good  exercises  to  the  spirit  as  the  fruit  of 
liis  operation,  and  places  the  works  of  the  flesh  in 
contrast  to  those,  as  what  are  not  to  be  considered  as 
the  effect  of  his  operation  on  the  hearts  of  men. 
See  James  id  14— IT*  Gal.  v,  19 — 23. 


SECTION  VIII. 


THE  POWER  AND  INFLUENCE,  WHICH  THE  SCRIP¬ 
TURES  ASCRIBE  TO  SATAN  IN  THE  PRODUCTION 
OF  MORAL  EVIL,  UTTERLY  IRRECONCILABLE  UPON 
JUST  AND  SOBER  PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION, 
TO  THIS  MODERN  NOTION  OF  DIVINE  EFFICIENCY. 

Some  have  supposed,  there  was  no  such  real  intel¬ 
lectual  spiritual  agent,  as  Satan.  All  that  is  said  of 
him  is  in  conformity  to  Jewish  prejudices,  or  a 
mere  personification  of  the  wicked  passions  or  lusts 
of  men.  Others  admit  there  is  such  an  intelligent 
agent  but  seem  almost  to  deny  his  influence  upon 
the  moral  state  and  character  of  man. 

But  the  following  texts  settle  this  point,  and  abun¬ 
dantly  prove,  that  there  is  such  a  being,  or  personal 
agent. 

‘‘Again  the  Devil  taketh  him  up  into  the  Holy 
City,  and  setteth  him  on  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple, 
and  saith  unto  him,  If  thou  be  the  Son  of  God,  cast 
thyself  down;  for,  &c.”  “Again  the  Devil  taketh 
him  up  into  an  exceeding  high  mountain,  and  sliew- 
cth  him  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  and  saith 
unto  him,  All  these  things  will  I  give  unto  thee,  if 
thou  wilt  fall  down  and  worship  me.” 

“Ye  are  of  your  father  the  Devi3>  and  the  lusts  of 
your  father  ye  will  do;  he  was  a  murderer  from  the 


SECTION  VIII. 


«  q 

G  O 


beginning,  and  abode  not  in  the  truth;  because  there 
is  no  truth  in  him.  When  lie  speaketh  a  lie,  ho 
speaketh  of  his  own,  for  he  is  a  liar  and  the  father  of 
it.” — “And  all  the  devils  besought  him,  saying,  Send 
us  into  the  swine,  that  we  may  enter  into  them;  and 
forthwith  Jesus  gave  them  leave;  and  the  unclean 
spirits  went  out  and  entered  into  the  swine,  and  the 
herd  ran  violently  down  a  steep  place  into  the  sea, 
(they  were  about  two  thousand,)  and  were  choaked 
in  the  sea.”  Mark  v,  12. 

Now  what  is  the  plain  obvious  sense  of  these  pas¬ 
sages?  Certainly,  that  there  is  really  such  a  being, 
agent, or  person,  as  the  Devil.  If  this  is  all  mere  alle¬ 
gory,  and  not  plain  history;  if  there  never  was  any 
real  tempter,  who  spake  to  Christ  as  here  repre¬ 
sented;  if  there  never  was  any  such  being  as  the 
Devil,  who  abode  not  in  the  truth;  if  there  was  no 
reality  in  the  devils  entering  into  the  swine,  and 
then  running  them  down  violently  into  the  sea,  &c. 
then  nothing  can  be  known  by  the  Scriptures.  We 
may  as  well  say,  every  thing  that  is  said  of  the 
sufferings,  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension  of 
Christ,  is  all  mere  figure,  or  allegory. 

With  respect  to  the  extent  of  Satan’s  power  to 
produce  evil  of  any  kind,  the  following  limitations 
of  it,  are  most  plainly  taught  in  the  divine  word. 

1.  Satan,  together  with  all  his  angels,  is  a  cre¬ 
ated  being,  and  is  no  less  dependent  on  the  power 
of  God,  for  the  continuation  of  his  being,  his 
powers  and  faculties,  than  the  minutest  object  of  all 
God’s  works. 

Here  all  creatures,  great  and  small,  stand  upon  a 
level. 

2.  Satan,  however  great  and  powerful,  is  abso¬ 
lutely  under  the  alkwise  government  and  control  of 
Jehovah.— He  is  bounded  and  limited,  by  the  infinite 
power  and  goodness  of  God,  and  can  no  more  go 
beyond  these  limits,  than  the  feeblest  insect  that 
inhabits  the  dust.  We  read  that  God  raised  up  Pha- 
roah,  that  he  might  declare  his  glory  in  or  by  him. 


34 


SECTION  vnr. 


In  like  manner,  in  his  providential  government,  lie 
hath  raised  up  the  Devil  and  all  his  angels,  that  he 
might  make  them  the  means  of  declaring  his  glory, 
his  power,  wisdom,  justice,  and  goodness. 

But  notwithstanding  the  Devil  is  thus  dependent 
and  under  divine  control,  he  may  still  be  a  great 
being,  and  have  a  great  and  powerful  agency  in  the 
production  of  evil  in  this  world. — We  know  not 
how  great  a  person  Satan  is.  For  aught  we  know, 
he  may  be  as  great  a  creature  as  the  Arians  make 
Christ  to  be.  No  bounds  can  be  set  to  the  power  of 
God,  as  to  the  degree  of  essence  and  capacity  he 
may  give  to  a  created  dependent  being.  We  would 
by  no  means  ascribe  to  so  malignant  an  agent,  more 
power  than  he  really  possesses.  But  certain  I  am, 
it  is  no  mark  of  a  deep  understanding  of  the  word 
of  God,  or  of  sound  wisdom,  to  treat  the  idea  of 
Satan’s  power  to  do  evil  with  contempt.  He  has 
power  to  bring  natural  evil  upon  men,  and  is  some¬ 
times  permitted  to  do  it,  to  a  great  extent;  as  Job 
was  given  into  his  hand,  and  was  dreadfully  afflicted 
by  his  power  and  malice. 

But  it  is  the  reality  and  extent  of  his  power  to 
produce  moral  evil,  that  we  are  here  concerned  to 
state.  And  here  the  Scriptures  furnish  us  with  the 
following  conclusions. — 

1.  The  introduction  of  sin  and  wickedness  into 
this  world,  is  ascribed  to  his  agency. — The  Scrip¬ 
tures  mention  no  other  agent  or  cause,  in  this  la¬ 
mentable  affair. — The  woman  herself  said,  “The 
serpent  beguiled  me,  and  1  did  eaf.”  God  himself 
charged  the  mischief  upon  the  Devil,  and  cursed 
him  for  it 

Upon  what  is  said  of  the  agency  of  the  Serpent, 
or  Devil,  in  the  3d  chap,  of  Gen.  effecting  the  fail 
of  man,  we  take  the  w7ords  of  Christ  and  St.  Paul  to 
be  the  most  proper  comment.  Matt,  xiii,  38.  “The 
field  is  the  world;  the  good  seed  are  the  children  of 
the  kingdom;  but  the  tares  are  the  children  of  the 
wicked  one.  The  enemy  that  sowed  them  is  the 


SECTION  Till. 


85 


Devil.*’  2  Cor.  xi,  3.  But  (  fear  lest  by  any  means, 
as  the  Serpent  beguiled  Eve  through  his  subtilty,  so 
your  minds  should  be  corrupted  from  the  simplicity 
that  is  in  Christ.” — But  this  account  of  the  fail  of 
man,  does  not  satisfy  the  curious  research  of  many. 
They  seem  to  think  there  is  a  difficulty  here,  which 
ought  to  be  solved,  and  which  all  that  Moses,  Christ, 
and  Paul,  have  said  about  it,  does  not  reach.  They 
have  not  said  enough. — No  agency  is  here  brought 
into  view,  sufficient  to  account  for  the  rise  of  sinful 
exercises  in  an  heart  previously  perfectly  pure  and 
holy.  I  conceive,  it  is  a  conclusion  warranted  by 
the  Scriptures,  that  means,  motives,  instruments, 
second  causes,  &c.  without  a  positive,  immediate, 
divine  efficiency,  are  sufficient  to  the  temptation  and 
seduction  of  a  creature  perfectly  holy,  or  hitherto 
sinless;  although  they  are  insufficient  to  restore 
again  the  image  of  God  to  one  who  lias  become  an 
apostate,  a  rebel,  a  slave  to  sin.  If  I  am  not  able 
to  defend  this  thought  on  the  ground  of  revelation, 
I  apprehend  no  one  can  disprove  it  on  that  ground. 
When  Christ  says  of  the  Devil,  “When  he  speaketh 
a  lie,  he  speaketh  of  his  own,  for  he  is  a  liar  and 
the  father  of  it.”  Does  he  mean  no  more  by  “his 
own  and  the  father  of  it,”  than,  that  such  an  exer¬ 
cise  was  his  own  exercise,  and  not  that  of  another 
creature? — Does  it  not  appear,  that  it  was  our 
Lord’s  design  to  caution  his  disciples  against  look¬ 
ing  beyond  the  agency  of  second  causes,  to  account 
for  the  existence  of  falsehood  and  wickedness?  Is 
it  possible  any  candid  sober  man  on  earth,  can  think 
that  the  Son  of  God  would  have  us  to  believe,  that, 
notwithstanding  what  he  has  here  said,  God  works 
immediately  in  the  heart  of  the  Devil,  every  lie,  and 
is  the  real  father  or  author  of  it?  Regardless  of 
all  that  philosophy  may  suggest  respecting  the  ab¬ 
surdity  of  a  self-determining  power,  and  the  impos¬ 
sibility  of  motives  being  efficient  causes,  &c.  (  im¬ 
agine  we  are  bound  by  what  our  Lord  here  says, 
not  to  go  beyond  the  power  of  second  causes,  as 
8 


86 


SECTION  VIII. 


swayed  by  the  Infinite  First  Cause,  to  account  for 
the  apostasy  of  creatures  once  sinless,  or  perfectly 
holy. — But  with  some  it  seems  a  plain  principle  of 
philosophy,  to  which  even  the  Scriptures  must  yield, 
that  it  requires  as  extraordinary  and  direct  a  power 
to  make  an  holy  being  sinful,  as  to  make  a  sinful 
being  holy. — Many  theories  have  been  invented  to 
explain  this  difficult  subject, — difficult,  because  man 
will  be  meddling  with  what  is  absolutely  above  his 
comprehension,  and  w  hat  God  has  not  thought  fit  to 
reveal.  Most  of  these  theories,  have  aimed  to  account 
for  the  origin  of  moral  evil,  without  introducing  a 
positive  divine  efficiency,  or  even  admitting  that  it 
was  comprehended  in  the  eternal  purposes  of  Jeho¬ 
vah.  But  have  any  of  their  different  schemes  afforded 
relief  to  the  inquiring  mind?  If  they  have  seemed 
to  remove  one  difficulty,  they  have  plunged  us  into 
many  more  still  greater? — And  after  all,  I  would 
inquire,  what  right  any  man  has  to  add  any  thing 
to  the  account  of  this  matter  given  by  the  sacred 
writers?  Was  it  not  adding  to  the  scripture  account, 
for  Milton  and  others  to  pretend,  God  could  not 
have  prevented  the  fall  of  Adam,  without  destroying 
his  moral  freedom?  And  is  it  not  equally  to  add  to 
the  Scripture  account,  to  say,  as  Dr.  Emmons  does, 
that  Satan  presented  motives  to  the  view  of  Adam 
to  sin,  which  motives  could  indeed  have  no  possible 
power  to  move  his  will,  or  to  excite  a  w  rong  choice; 
that  the  agency  that  produced  the  effect,  was 
God  himself,  directly  moving  the  heart  of  Adam  to 
choose  evil.  Do  the  Scriptures  in  accounting  for 
this  event,  give  us  the  least  hint  of  this  kind?  Is 
this  the  plain  obvious  sense  of  what  they  say  upon 
the  subject?  Because  the  philosopher  can  see  no 
other  wray  to  account  for  the  event,  does  this  prove 
this  solution  to  be  correct?  There  may  be  another, 
though  we  be  not  able  to  perceive  it. 

This  is  the  source  of  numberless  errors  among 
philosophers.  ‘‘There  is  no  other  way  to  account 
for  the  phenomena.”  The  Manickean  says,  there  is 


SECTION  VIII. 


87 


no  other  way  to  account  for  the  existence  of  moral 
evil,  except  upon  the  principle  of  the  existence  of 
a  benevolent  and  an  evil  God. — Because,  we  can¬ 
not  account  for  the  fall  of  Adam,  or  of  the  once 
sinless  angels,  without  introducing  a  divine  direct 
efficiency,  to  move  their  wills  to  sin,  are  we  war¬ 
ranted  to  set  up  this  principle  as  truth? — l  trow  not. 

2.  All  sinners  of  mankind,  since  the  apostasy,  are 
in  the  Scriptures  represented  as  under  the  power 
and  influence  of  the  Devil. — And  such  language  is 
used,  as  cannot  be  reconciled  to  this  modern  notion 
of  divine  efficiency  in  the  production  of  the  evil 
exercises  of  men.  “But  if  I  cast  out  devils  by  the 
spirit  of  God,  then  the  kingdom  of  God  is  come 
nigh  unto  you.  Or  else  how  can  one  enter  into  a 
strong  man’s  house  and  spoil  his  goods,  except  he 
first  bind  the  strong  man.”  Matt,  xii,  28.  Here 
Satan  is  a  strong  man,  holding  possession  of  the 
heart  as  his  residence.  “And  that  they  may  recover 
themselves  out  of  the  snare  of  the  Devil,  who  are 
taken  captive  by  him  at  his  will.”  2  Tim.  ii,  26. 
“Wherein  in  time  past  ye  walked  according  to  the 
course  of  this  world,  according  to  the  prince  of  the 
power  of  the  air,  the  spirit  that  now  workcth  in  the 
children  of  disobedience.”  Ep.  ii,  2. 

Now  is  this  the  obvious  sense  of  these  texts,  that 
Satan  cannot  move  the  wills  of  sinners  by  motives, 
nor  any  other  influence,  to  evil;  but  when  it  is  said, 
he  is  the  spirit  that  now  worketh  in  the  children  of 
disobedience,  we  are  to  understand,  that  God  is  that 
spirit,  which  directly  moves  and  excites  every  sin¬ 
ner  to  impiety  and  mischief?  The  Bible  is  truly 
written  in  a  strange  style,  if  this  is  the  obvious  sense. 

3.  Satan  is  represented  as  the  agent,  who  moves 
sinners  to  outward  gross  crimes  and  abominations. 
An  evil  spirit  from  the  Lord,  i.  e.  the  Devil  by  divine 
permission,  instigated  Saul  to  attempt  the  murder  of 
David.  Calvin  says,  it  would  be  blasphemy  to  say 
this  was  the  spirit  of  God.  When  David  committed 
the  great  sin  of  numbering  the  people,  the  Devil  is 


88 


SECTION  VIII. 


said  to  provoke  him  to  it.  As  it  was  God’s  purpose 
to  punish  him  and  the  people,  he  is  also  said  to  move 
David;  but  it  was  by  suffering  him  in  a  degree  to 
fall  under  the  power  and  influence  of  the  Devil. — 
When  Judas  betrayed  the  Lord  of  life  and  glory, 
it  is  said,  Satan  entered  into  him.  Peter  says  to 
Ananias,  “Why  hath  Satan  put  it  into  thy  heart  to 
lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost?”  But  is  it  the  obvious  mean¬ 
ing  of  this  declaration  of  Peter,  that  God  stood  by 
Ananias,  and  moved  him,  by  a  direct  operation  on 
his  heart,  as  Dr.  Emmons  says,  in  respect  to  God’s 
.hardening  the  heart  of  Pharaoh. — When  the  Bible 
says,  Satan  puts  it  into  the  heart  of  a  wicked  man, 
are  we  always  to  understand,  that  God  is  meant  in¬ 
stead  of  Satan? — For  the  doctrine  we  oppose,  as¬ 
serts,  that  neither  Satan,  nor  any  other  second 
cause,  can  incline  the  heart  of  even  the  greatest  sin¬ 
ner  to  do  evil? 

4.  The  Devil  in  the  word  of  God,  is  represented 
as  the  grand  agent  in  effecting  the  great  apostasy 
from  Christianity,  under  the  man  of  sin,  the  Bishop 
of  Rome.  “Whose  coming,”  says  Paul,  “is  after  the 
working  of  Satan,  with  all  signs  and  lying  wonders, 
and  with  all  deceivableness  of  unrighteousness  in 
them  that  perish.”  2  Thess.  ii,  9. 

This  apostasy  was  an  engine  of  Hell  to  oppose 
Christ,  and  to  destroy  mankind.  It  is  compared  to 
a  fierce  and  cruel  wild  beast,  and  the  Devil  was  the 
Spirit  who  lived  and  acted  in  this  beast.  “And 
there  appeared  another  wonder  in  heaven,  and  be¬ 
hold  a  great  red  dragon;  having  seven  heads  and  ten 
horns,  and  seven  crowns  upon  his  heads.  And  there 
was  war  in  heaven,  Michael  and  his  angels  fought 
against  the  dragon,  and  the  dragon  fought  and  his 
angels,  and  the  great  dragon,  that  old  serpent  the 
Devil,  and  Satan  was  cast  out.”  And  this  same 
dragon  is  said  to  give  power  unto  the  beast.  He  is 
also  said  to  deceive  the  whole  world. 

5.  The  Devil  is  so  eminently  the  cause  of  all 
wickedness  that  prevails  in  the  world,  that  in  order 


SECTION  YIII. 


89 


to  the  introduction  of  the  peace,  order,  religion,  and 
felicity  of  the  millennial  state,  he  must  be  confined 
in  the  bottomless  pit,  and  suffered  no  more  to  go 
out.  Rev.  xx,  3. 

6.  Nay,  such  is  bis  power  to  produce  wickedness 
in  the  world,  that  he  is  no  sooner  released  out  of 
this  pit,  than  he  again  succeeds  to  deceive  the  nations, 
and  to  draw  them  into  war  among  themselves,  and 
against  God;  and  to  repeat  all  the  abominations 
which  prevailed  for  thousands  of  years  previous 
to  the  millennium.  Rev.  xx,  7,  8. 

Finally,  so  great  is  the  power  of  Satan  repre¬ 
sented  in  the  Scripture,  to  produce  sin  and  destroy 
mankind,  that  the  grand  object  of  Christ’s  incarna¬ 
tion  was  to  destroy  his  works. — “For  this  purpose 
was  the  Son  of  God  manifested,  that  he  might  de¬ 
stroy  the  works  of  the  Devil.”  1  John  iii,  8. 

From  all  these  considerations,  it  is  exceedingly 
evident,  that  the  Devil,  though  not  an  independent, 
is  a  very  great  being,  and  has  a  real  and  tremend¬ 
ous  power  to  excite,  seduce,  and  draw  men  into 
sin. — To  say,  that  neither  he  nor  any  other  second 
causes,  have  any  power  to  draw  away  men  into 
wickedness;  that  after  the  Devil,  motives,  tempta¬ 
tions,  and  second  causes,  have  spent  all  the  power 
God  ever  gave  them,  they  cannot  excite  the  will  of 
man,  in  a  single  instance,  to  choose  evil.  This  is 
never  done,  and  never  can  be  done,  but  by  a  direct, 
inward,  divine  efficiency  upon  the  heart.  This,  in 
our  humble  opinion,  is  one  of  the  most  plain  and 
obvious  perversions  of  the  word  of  God,  that  the 
arrogance  of  human  philosophy  has  ever  yet  dared 
to  broach.  It  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  what  is 
said  in  the  sacred  volume,  of  the  power  of  Satan  to 
produce  moral  evil,  unless  it  be  by  some  strained 
interpretation*  and  philosophical  refinement,  that 
sets  aside  the  plain  and  sober  sense  of  Scripture. 

*8 


SECTION  IX. 


ft 

WHAT  IS  SAID  IN  THE  SCRIPTURES  OF  GOD’S  GIVING 
UP  SINNERS  TO  THEIR  OWN  HEARTS’  LUSTS,  AND 
SUFFERING  THEM  TO  WALK  IN  THEIR  OWN  WAYS, 
INCONSISTENT  WITH  THE  IDEA  OF  DIVINE  EFFI¬ 
CIENCY  UNDER  CONSIDERATION. 


It  lias  been  usual  with  the  most  eminent  divines 
and  pious  Christians,  to  speak  of  the  sins  and 
crimes  of  men  as  taking  place  by  divine  permis¬ 
sion. — But  the  terms  to  permit,  to  suffer,  or  not  to 
hinder,  are  now  by  some  considered  as  pretty  little 
palliating  terms,  invented  to  keep  the  agency  and 
counsel  of  God  in  the  government  of  the  world, 
out  of  sight,— -But  in  regard  to  the  use  of  such  lan¬ 
guage,  I  have  three  things  to  observe. 

1.  It  is  well  adapted  to  that  modesty,  diffidence, 
and  reverence,  which  becomes  frail  children  of  the 
dust,  when  they  speak  of  the  awful  mysteries,  of  the 
counsels,  ways,  and  providence  of  the  Most  High. — 
Which  is  most  becoming,  to  say,  that,  for  some  wise 
purpose,  God  permitted  the  rebellious  angels  to  fall 
into  sin  and  guilt,  and  to  bring  eternal  ruin  on 
themselves;  or  to  say,  that,  by  a  direct  positive  effi¬ 
ciency,  he  moved  their  hearts  to  hate  him  and 
trample  down  his  authority? — l  should  think  that 
the  former  mode  of  expression  savors  much  more  of 
piety  and  sound  wisdom  than  the  latter. 


SECTION  IX. 


91 


David’s  exclamation  is,  “Lord,  my  heart  is  not 
haughty,  nor  mine  eyes  lofty;  neither  do  1  exercise 
myself  in  great  matters,  or  in  things  too  high  for 
me.”  Psal.  cxxxi,  1. 

On  this  point,  the  judicious  and  candid  Dr.  Smal¬ 
ley,  exactly  coincides  with  us  in  sentiment. 

“I  see  no  occasion  for  the  supposition  of  God’s 
being  thus  the  author  of  ail  evil,  nor  any  good  ends 
it  can  answer.  Could  it  be  seen  how  evils  might  be 
accounted  for,  without  supposing  them  any  part  of 
the  creation  of  God;  and  how  God  might  have  an 
absolute  dominion  over  all  events,  without  being  the 
immediate  cause  of  bad  things;  no  good  man,  I  con¬ 
clude,  would  wish  to  conceive  of  him  as  being  thus 
the  proper  source  of  darkness  and  evil. 

“And  indeed,  were  it  so  that  our  weak  minds  were 
unable  to  comprehend  how  God  can  work  all  things 
after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will,  or  how  natural 
and  moral  evil  could  ever  have  been,  without  believing 
that  God  is  as  much,  and  as  immediately,  the  cause 
of  evil  as  of  good;  yet  it  might  be  more  modest,  and 
more  wise,  to  leave  these  among  other  incomprehen- 
sibles,  than  to  have  recourse  to  so  bold  an  hypothesis 
for  the  solution.” — Smalley,  Ser.  6.  p.  95. 

I  shall  not  undertake  to  say,  because  I  do  not 
know,  what  that  is  in  a  good  man’s  mind,  which 
causes  him  to  delight  to  speak  of  God  as  the  effi¬ 
cient  cause,  that  moves  the  hearts  of  men  to  all 
wickedness.  Dr.  Smalley,  you  see,  concludes  no 
good  man  would  wish,  if  he  could  avoid  it,  to  hold 
such  kind  of  language. 

2.  This  language  is  agreeable  to  sound  reason 
and  philosophy. — It  does  by  no  means  imply,  that 
moral  agents,  or  physical  causes,  ever  act  indepen¬ 
dently  of  the  preserving  power,  amfallwise  control¬ 
ling  agency  of  the  Providence  of  God. — When  a 
thing  is  said  to  be  permitted,  all  that  is  meant,  is, 
that  from  preceding  acts  of  creating  power,  and 
providential  direction,  an  event  will  take  place, 
except  it  be  prevented  by  another  divine  act,  put 
forth  for  that  purpose. 


92 


SECTION  IX. 


God  having  created  the  lions,  into  whose  den 
Daniel  was  thrown,  and  preserved  them  with  their 
natural  appetite  for  blood,  they  would  have  devoured 
the  prophet,  had  not  God,  by  another  act,  interposed 
to  prevent  it.  And  this  may  take  place  continually, 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  divine  Providence,  without 
any  appearance  of  a  miracle.  Thus,  had  not  the 
Duke  of  York,  in  the  retreat  out  of  Holland,  been 
jostled  aside,  and  a  soldier  stepped  into  the  boat 
before  him,  that  ball  which  killed  the  soldier,  would 
have  killed  the  Duke,  the  commander  in  chief.  But 
here  God  permitted  the  soldier  to  be  killed,  but 
would  not  permit  the  life  of  the  general  to  be  taken. 
AH  other  things  being  formed,  preserved,  and  di¬ 
rected  as  they  were,  the  ball  would  inevitably  come 
in  that  line;  but  by  another  omnipotent  providential 
disposal,  God  took  him  out  of  the  way,  and  so 
would  not  permit,  but  hindered  his  being  killed. 
"When  Satan  entered  paradise,  and  all  the  circum¬ 
stances  of  the  temptation  were  brought  about,  if 
God  did  not  interpose  by  another  act,  Adam  would 
be  seduced;  but  God  did  not  interpose,  and  so  he 
permitted  him  to  fall. 

$.  Th  is  language  is  conformable  to  the  style  and 
manner  in  which  the  Scriptures  oft  speak  of  the 
ways  of  God.  “But  my  people  would  not  hearken 
to  my  voice;  and  Israel  would  none  of  me,  so  I  gave 
them  up  to  their  own  hearts’  lusts;  and  they  walked 
in  their  own  counsels.”  Psal.  Ixxxi,  11,  12.  “He 
suffered  no  man  to  do  them  wrong:  yea,  he  reproved 
kings  for  their  sakes.”  1  Chron.  xvi,  £1.  The 
Hebrew  term,  which  in  this  passage  our  translators 
have  rendered  “suffered,”  Junius  and  Tremellius 
render  ‘‘permisit,”  or  permitted.  “Tie  suffered  not 
the  devils  to  speak,”  Mark  i,  34.  “Who  in  time 
past  suffered  ail  nations  to  walk  in  their  own  ways.” 
Acts  xiv,  16.  The  Greek  term  in  this  last  passage 
answering  to  suffered,  is  tictat  which  is  an  inflexion 
of  the  verb  saw,  and  rendered  by  Schrevillius^Sino,” 
permit,  <SAnd  God  said  unto  him  in  a  dream,  yea  I 


SECTION  IX. 


93 


know  thou  didst  this  in  the  integrity  of.  thine 
heart;  for  I  also  withheld  thee  from  sinning  against 
me;  therefore  suffered  I  thee  not  to  touch  her.” 
Gen.  xx,  6. 

Here,  according  to  Junius  and  Tremellius,  the 
proper  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  word  anwering  to 
“suffered,”  is  “sivi,”  I  permitted.  Rom.  ix,  22,  25, 
is  a  remarkable  passage,  and  ought  not  to  pass  un¬ 
noticed  in  the  present  argument.  “What  if  God, 
willing  to  shew  his  wrath  and  to  make  his  power 
known,  endured  with  much  long  suffering  the  vessels 
of  wrath  fitted  to  destruction.  And  that  he  might 
make  known  the  riches  of  his  glory  on  the  vessels 
of  mercy  which  he  had  afore  prepared  unto  glory.” 

Let  it  here  be  remarked,  that  in  regard  to  the 
vessels  of  mercy,  God  is  said  to  prepare  them;  a 
word  importing  positive  agency  ^poyfloi^aaev)  is 
used;  but  with  respect  to  the  vessels  of  wrath,  a 
term  of  a  passive  signification  is  applied.  xv£yx£V9 
he  endured,  he  suffered.  Now  what  is  meant  by 
this  different  phraseology?  If  God  in  both  cases  is 
equally  the  direct  efficient  cause,  vvhy  in  the  prepar¬ 
ation  of  the  just  for  glory,  should  he  be  represented 
as  eminently  active;  but  in  the  fitting  of  the  wicked 
for  destruction,  enduring,  or  suffering,  rather  than 
action,  should  be  ascribed  to  him? 

Much  more  to  this  purpose  might  be  adduced,  but 
these  passages  will  suffice  such  as  have  a  due  respect 
for  the  authority  of  the  inspired  writers.  It  surely 
ought  not  to  alarm  us  to  have  it  suggested,  that  the 
terms  permit,  suffer,  restrain,  leave,  &c.  are  only  a 
soft  and  cautious  way  to  keep  the  truth  respecting 
the  divine  agenev  out  of  sight,  because  the  censure 
falls  with  equal  force  and  justice  upon  the  word  of 
Go:l  itself.  There  is  surely  no  need  of  going  any  fur¬ 
ther  than  the  Scriptures  do,  in  speaking  of  the  great- 
n  ss  of  the  power  of  God,  or  the  extent  of  his  agen¬ 
cy. — It  is  also  here  to  he  remarked,  that  the  natural 
and  obvious  import  and  meaning  of  such  expres¬ 
sions,  giving  men  up  to  their  own  hearts’  Justs, 


94 


SECTION  IX. 


giving  them  over  to  a  reprobate  mind,  leaving  or 
permitting  them  to  walk  in  their  own  counsels,  is  ir¬ 
reconcilable  to  the  idea,  that  all  their  exercises  are 
the  effect  of  a  direct  divine  influence  on  their  heart, 
or  that  no  second  causes,  instruments,  or  motives, 
can  call  forth  any  volition  or  choice  in  their  minds. — 
It  implies,  that  they  naturally  possess  powerful  pro¬ 
pensities  to  that  which  is  evil,  and  that  God  has  only 
to  forbear,  to  renew,  or  restrain  them,  and  they  will 
run  into  all  manner  of  wickedness. 

This  is  not  the  manner  in  which  the  Scriptures 
speak  of  a  direct  divine  agency,  in  exciting  men  to 
holy  and  virtuous  dispositions  and  actions. — Though 
saints  love  God  supremely,  and  habitually,  live  so¬ 
berly,  righteously,  and  godly;  yet  they  are  never  said 
to  be  given  up  to  walk  in  their  new  hearts’  desires, 
or  to  be  suffered  to  walk  in  their  own  holy  ways. — 
This  is  not  the  language  in  which  a  direct  divine 
influence  is  represented,  when  applied  to  move  and 
influence  the  heart  to  what  is  good.— *A  different  lan¬ 
guage  being  used  in  regard  to  the  wickedness  of 
men  shews,  that  it  is  not  produced  by  a  similar  di¬ 
vine  influence. — The  Scriptures  speak  of  saints  be¬ 
ing  led  by  the  Spirit,  and  of  the  taking  away  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  from  men. — But  if  the  exercises  of 
wicked  men  are  the  effect  of  a  constant  inward  di¬ 
vine  operation,  then  sinners  are  led  by  God,  and  so 
by  the  Spirit,  as  much  as  saints.  And  there  can  be 
no  such  thing  as  the  Spirit  of  God  being  grieved,  or 
taken  away. — instead  of  being  taken  away,  the 
more  men  run  into  the  most  bold  impieties  and 
strong  and  deadly  delusions,  the  more  evidence  there 
is,  that  God  has  come  and  taken  up  his  abode  in  their 
hearts,  and  the  more  powerfully  he  works  in  them, 
and  the  more  they  are  moved  and  led  by  him. — These 
are  shocking  representations,  it  is  true, — at  which 
some  pious  minds  must  shudder, — but  wTe  must  aver, 
that  they  are  the  genuine  results  and  consequences 
of  the  doctrine  we  oppose. 


SECTION  X 


THIS  IDE  A  OF  DIVINE  EFFICIENCY,  A  NOVEL  DOCTRINE, 
UNKNOWN  TO  THE  CHURCH  OF  GOD  IN  ALL  PAST 
AGES. 


We  know  indeed  that  the  antiquity  of  a  religious 
opinion  is  no  certain  evidence  of  its  truth;  jet  the 
voice  of  the  most  enlightened  and  virtuous  part  of 
the  Church  of  God  in  all  past  ages  is  not  lightly  to 
he  contemned.  This  voice  is  entirely  against  the 
doctrine  of  positive  efficiency  in  the  production  of 
moral  evil.  The  texts  which  are  now  applied  to 
support  this  theory,  they  have  ever  understood  as 
implying  no  more  than  an  all  wise  and  powerful 
providential  disposal  and  application  of  second  caus¬ 
es. — To  this  point  in  particular,  the  reasoning  of 
Dr.  Dwight  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Death  of  Gov. 
Trumbull,  in  relation  to  the  truth  of  the  doctrines  of 
grace  in  general,  seems  to  he  applicable. 

“That  they  are  substantially  the  genuine  doctrines 
of  the  Gospel  is  satisfactorily  evinced  by  two  very 
interesting  considerations. 

“They  have  been  the  doctrines  of  those,  who  in 
every  age  have  claimed  the  character  of  orthodox; 
and,  who  by  their  adversaries  have  been  acknowledg¬ 
ed  to  possess  it  in  the  public  estimation. 


96 


SECTION  X. 


“By  this  I  intend,  that  from  the  age  of  the  apos¬ 
tles,  they  were  those  in  whom  the  apostolic  church 
was  regularly  continued  from  period  to  period. 

“That  this  body  of  men  has  judged  justly  concern¬ 
ing  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  and  received  them, 
at  least  in  substance,  as  they  are  there  revealed,  can¬ 
not,  1  think,  be  questioned  even  with  plausibility  or 
decency. — That  they  have  mistaken  them  regularly, 
and  through  such  a  succession  of  ages,  and  yet 
brought  forth  their  proper  fruits  in  an  evangelical 
life,  is  to  me  incredible.  The  fact  would  certainly 
establish  this  remarkable  conclusion,  that  error  has 
been  productive  of  incomparably  more  piety  and 
virtue  in  the  world,  than  the  truth  of  God. 55 

The  advocates  for  the  doctrine  under  considera¬ 
tion,  may  attempt  to  sanction  their  belief  by  the  au¬ 
thority  of  the  ancient  fathers,  or  at  least  by  that  of 
the  most  noted  reformers.  I  will  not  say  this  would 
be  an  attempt  to  impose  upon  the  uninformed,  but  I 
will  venture  to  affirm  that  no  such  opinion  was  ever 
held  by  the  fathers  or  reformers. — Some  of  the  latter 
may  have  used  strong  expressions  respecting  the 
divine  decrees,  and  the  providence  of  God  as  direct¬ 
ing  all  events,  yet  it  never  entered  into  their  hearts  to 
adopt  it  as  their  system,  that  God  was  the  inward 
efficient  cause  of  all  moral  evil  — To  confirm  this 
statement  we  shall  here  adduce  a  few  authorities; 

Augustine,  cited  by  Calvin.  Inst.  b.  2,  ch.  4,  s.  ?. 
‘<In  one  place,  Augustine  compareth  man’s  w  ill  to 
a  horse,  w  hich  is  ready  to  be  ruled  by  the  w  ill  of  his 
rider;  and  God  and  the  Devil  he  compareth  to  ri¬ 
ders.  If  God,  saitli  he,  sit  upon  it,  he  like  a  sober 
and  cunning  rider  governeth  its  will,  turneth  the 
stubbornness  of  it,  and  guideth  it  into  the  right  way. 
But  if  the  devil  have  possessed  it,  he  like  a  foolish 
and  wanton  rider,  violently  carrieth  it  through  places 
where  no  way  is,  driveth  it  into  ditches.  See.  And 
which  similitude  we  will  for  this  time  be  contented 
with,  since  there  cometh  not  a  better  in  place.” 


SECTION  X. 


9  7 


Calvin.  He  was  careful  not  to  ascribe  tlie  origin  of 
moral  evil  in  devils  to  a  divine  efficiency.  Inst.  b.  1, 
eh.  14,  s.  16.  ‘‘But  forasmuch  as  the  devil  was 
created  by  God,  let  us  remember  that  this  malice, 
which  we  ascribe  to  Ins  nature,  is  not  by  creation, 
but  by  depravation.  For  whatsoever  damnable  thing 
he  hath,  he  hath  gotten  to  himself  by  his  own  apos¬ 
tasy  and  fall;  which  the  Scripture  therefore  giveth 
us  warning  of,  lest  thinking  lie  came  out  such  a  one 
from  God,  we  should  ascribe  that  to  God  himself, 
which  is  farthest  from  him.” 

Again,  b.  4,  ch.  4,  s.,3.  “It  is  oftinies  said,  that 
God  bJindcth  and  bardeneth  the  reprobate,  that  be 
turneth*  bowctii  and  moveth  their  hearts,  &c.  There¬ 
fore  we  answer,  that  it  is  done  after  two  manners. 
For  first,  whereas  when  his  light  is  taken  away, 
there  remaineth  nothing  but  darkness,  and  blindness, 
& c.  whereas  when  bis  spirit  is  taken  away,  our  hearts 
w  ax  hard,  and  become  stones.  The  second  manner, 
which  cometh  nearer  to  the  property  of  the  words,  is, 
that  for  the  executing  of  his  judgments  by  Satan  the 
minister  of  bis  wrath,  be  both  appointeth  their  pur¬ 
poses  to  what  end  it  pleaseth  him,  and  stirreth  up 
their  wills,”  &c. 

Thus  Calvin,  whatever  strong  language  he  useth 
in  giving  us  his  ideas  of  the  power  and  extent  of  the 
providence  of  God,  is  very  careful  not  to  ascribe  sin, 
even  in  the  reprobate,  to  ft  direct  positive  divine 
influence;  but  their  wills  are  stirred  up  by  Satan. 

Jerome  Zanchius,  translated  by  Toplady,  Pos.  v. 
‘‘God  is  the  Creator  of  the  wicked,  but  not  of  their 
wickedness;  lie  is  the  authpr  of  their  being,  but 
not  the  infuser  of  their  sin.” 

“Sin,  says  the  apostle,  entered  into  the  world  by 
one  man,  meaning  Adam.  Though  without  the 
permission  of  his  will  and  the  concurrence  of  his 
providence,  its  introduction  had  been  impossible; 
yet  is  he  not  hereby  the  author  of  sin  so  introduced.” 

Luther.  Philip  Melancthon  inquiring  of  Luther, 
how  we  are  to  understand  this  word  hardened, 
9 


93 


SECTION  Xi 


among  other  things  in  reply,  he  says,  “God  is  not 
the  cause  of  evil,”  j.  e.  moral  evil  or  sin.  Again; 
“We  say  flatly,  No,  God  is  not  the  cause  of  evil, 
but  a  Creator  of  all  things,”  &c.  Luther’s  Div. 
Bis.  at  his  table.  Quoted  by  Zanchius  on  Pre¬ 
destination,  he  says,  “Although  God  doth  not  make 
sin,  nevertheless  he  ceases  not  to  create  and  multi¬ 
ply  individuals  in  the  human  nature,  which  through 
the  withholding  of  his  Spirit  is  corrupted  by  sin.”  In 
quoting  Luther,  Mr.  Weeks  says,  here  is  one  sen¬ 
tence  worthy  of  particular  attention,  “God  worketh 
ail  things  in  men,  even  wickedness  in  the  wicked; 
for  this  is  one  branch  of  his  own  omnipotence.” 

But  why  is  this  any  more  worthy  of  particular  at¬ 
tention  than  the  sentence  before  cited.  “We  sav 

w 

flatly,  No,  God  is  not  the  cause  of  evil,  &c.”  If  Lu¬ 
ther  in  these  words,  so  worthy  of  attention,  was  of 
the  opinion  of  Mr.  Weeks,  he  flatly  contradicts  him¬ 
self. — But  he  is  not  thus  inconsistent.  He  means 
that  God  worketh  all  things  in  men,  even  wicked¬ 
ness  in  the  wicked,  as  in  the  kingdom  of  providence 
he  directs  and  controls  all  means,  motives  and 
second  causes. 

It  doubtless  never  entered  into  his  heart,  that  it 
was  the  immediate  agency  of  God  alone  that 
wrought  all  wickedness  in  men  and  devils.  And  in 
quoting  Luther  to  this  purpose,  Mr.  W.  falls  into  a 
mistake  precisely  like  that  of  Mr.  Merril,w  ho  adduc¬ 
ed  the  authority  of  Calvin,  to  shew  that  immersion 
was  the  only  valid  mode  of  Baptism. 

Herman  Witsius.  Mr.  Weeks  introduces  Herman 
Witsius,  D.  D.  as  an  authority  to  support  the  idea, 
that  an  immediate  divine  influence  is  not  a  novel 
doctrine.  He  speaks  of  him  in  terms  of  high  re¬ 
spect  as  a  very  able  divine,  and  seems  to  think  his 
name  must  do  honor  to  his  caused  But  who 
would  imagine  that  this  same  Witsius,  reprobates  in 
the  strongest  terms  the  doctrine  he  is  quoted  to  sup¬ 
port?— In  a  w  ork  entitled  the  “Economy  of  the  Coy 


'  Nine  Sermons,  pp.  177. 


SECTION  X. 


99 


enants,”  translated  from  the  latin  by  W.  Crookshank, 
D.  D.  vol.  i,  b.  1,  chap.  8,  see.  28,  p.  183,  he  says 
“To  make  God  the  author  of  sin  is  such  dreadful 
blasphemy,  that  the  thought  cannot  without  horror 
be  entertained  by  any  Christian.”—' “God  neither 
is,  nor  in  any  respect  can  be  the  author  of  sin.” 
After  attempting  to  remove  a  difficulty  that  might 
seem  to  arise  from  the  purposes  and  universal 
agency  of  God,  he  concedes  that  it  is  impossi¬ 
ble  for  man  in  his  present  state  of  blindness  to  do 
it;  and  adds,  “This  is  not  the  alone,  nor  single 
difficulty,  whose  solution  the  sober  divine  will  ever 
reserve  for  the  world  to  come.” 

Is  this  the  way  to  treat  authors,  to  cite  them  as  de¬ 
fending  what  they  view  with  horror  and  reject  as 
blasphemy? 

In  Dr.  Witsius’s  philosophical  remarks,  Mr. 
Weeks  finds  an  advocate  for  his  own  theory.  I5ut 
would  not  this  aide  divine,  have  rejected  his  own 
philosophy  as  utterly  fallacious,  if  he  had  foreseen  he 
should  one  day  be  quoted  to  recommend,  w  hat  to  him 
wras  evidently  blasphemy?  This  may  fairly  be  pre¬ 
sumed  from  the  strong  terms  in  which  he  spurns  at 
the  doctrine,  which  he  is  arraigned  to  defend. 

Dut  what  shall  we  say  of  Use  many  and  very  re¬ 
spectable  authorities  Mr.  W.  lias  introduced  to  es¬ 
tablish  the  reputation  of  Witsius  as  an  eminent  the¬ 
ological  writer? 

If  Witsius  never  believed,  nor  w  rote  a  syllable  to 
defend  the  novel  conception  of  Mr.  W.  concerning 
the  divine  agency  in  the  production  of  moral  evil, 
and  if  the  distinguished  names  he  has  adduced  never 
understood  him  to  do  so,  I  do  not  see  how  all  this 
helps  his  cause.  11  is  readers  however  are  liable  to  ffc 
misguided. — It  will  not  be  unnatural  for  them  to 
think,  that  Mr.  Ilervey,  Dr.  Livingston,  &c.  &c. 
were  fully  in  sentiment  with  Mr.  W  on  the  point 
under  discussion.  It  would  have  been  no  offence  to 
honor  and  integrity,  had  a  note  been  inserted  to  let 
the  reader  know,  that  as  to  this  particular  notion 


SECTION  X. 


HjQ 

of  divine  agency,  that  few  or  none  of  these  great 
names  were  on  the  side  of  Mr.  W. 

President  Edwards.  It  will  not  be  pretended, 
that  this  great  and  excellent  man  did  not  most  thor¬ 
oughly  understand  the  Doctrines  of  the  reformers 
and  of  Calvinistic  divines  in  general,  in  regard  to 
the  decrees  and  efficiency  of  God,  as  they  respect 
the  existence  of  moral  evil. — But  this  writer  in  his 
treatise  on  original  sin,  denies,  not  only  for  himself, 
but  in  behalf  of  other  divines  who  hold  the  same 
doctrine,  that  they  believe  in  a  positive  divine  agency 
in  the  production  of  moral  evil  in  any  case.  See  part 
4.  ch.  2. 

Dr.  Taylor  had  insisted,  that  the  doctrine  of 
native  corruption,  made  him,  who  is  the  author  of 
our  nature,  the  author  of  our  sinfulness.  “But  with 
respect  to  this,  Mr.  Edwards  replies,  1  would  observe 
in  the  first  place,  that  tills  writer,  in  his  handling  this 
grand  objection,  supposes  something  to  belong  to  the 
doctrine  objected  against,  as  maintained  by  the  di¬ 
vines,  whom  he  is  opposing,  which  does  not  belong  to 
it,  nor  does  follow  from  it,  as  particularly  he  suppos¬ 
es  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  to  imply  that  nature 
must  be  corrupted,  by  some  positive  influence, ”  &c. 

In  bis  treatise  on  the  Will,  to  which  lie  in  this 
chapter  refers,  he  has  clearly  stated  how  far  he  sup¬ 
poses  a  divine  efficiency  is  concerned  in  the  produc¬ 
tion  of  moral  evil.  And  farther  than  this  the  Church 
of  God  did  never  go,  till  this  new  theory  was  intro¬ 
duced  into  New  England.— 

“If  by  the  author  of  sin,  is  meant  the  permitter, 
or  not  a  hinderer  of  sin;  and  at  the  same  time  a  dis¬ 
poser  of  the  state  of  events,  in  such  a  manner,  for 
wise  and  holy  and  most  excellent  ends  and  purposes, 
that  sin,  if  it  be  permitted,  or  not  hindered,  will  most 
certainly  and  infallibly  follow.  I  say,  if  this  he  all 
that  is  meant  by  being  the  author  of  sin,  1  do  not 
deny  that  God  is  the  author  of  it.”  “There  is  a 
great  difference  between  God’s  being  concerned  thus 
by  his  permission;  or  between  his  being  the  orderer  of 


SECTION  X. 


101 


its  certain  existence,  by  not  hindering  it,  under  cer¬ 
tain  circumstances,  and  his  being  the  proper  actor  or 
author  of  it,  by  a  positive  agency  or  efficiency.” — > 
And  as  in  ages  past,  so  the  views  of  the  Christian 
world  continue  to  be  the  same  on  this  subject  to  the 
present  day,  if  we  except  those,  who  have  adopted  a 
different  theory  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic. 

Dr.  Thomas  Scott,  in  his  Family  Bible,  a  work 
highly  esteemed  by  the  Christian  public,  in  his  notes 
on  Exod.  iv,  21,  hath  these  words. — ‘‘Harden.  God. 
never  communicates  hardness,  or  wickedness  to  the 
heart  of  man  by  a  positive  act.  For  he  cannot  be 
tempted  of  evil;  neither  tcmpteth  he  any  man.  But 
when  provoked  by  atrocious  crimes,  he  gives  up  a 
man  to  his  own  heart’s  lusts;  he  permits  Satan  to  de¬ 
ceive,  entice,  and  blind  him;  and  he  takes  off  his 
providential  restraints,  by  which  many  are  kept 
from  wickedness,  because  they  have  not  opportunity 
or  power  to  commit  it,  or  dare  not  through  fear  or 
shame.  When  a  man  is  thus  left,  commands,  warn¬ 
ings,  judgments,  deliverances,  every  truth  in  Scrip¬ 
ture,  and  every  dispensation  in  Providence,  prove 
the  occasion  of  increasing  obstinacy  and  insensibil¬ 
ity,  pride  and  presumption.” 

In  the  Christian  Observer,  a  work  published  in 
England,  and  celebrated  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlan¬ 
tic  for  its  piety,  learning,  candor  and  excellent 
Spirit,  the  doctrine  of  ascribing  the  wickedness  of 
the  heart  of  men,  to  a  positive  divine  influence 
is  considered  as  going  an  awful  length.— -See  vol.  16, 
p.  395.-— “This  suspicion  will  be  heightened,  if 
we  push  each  train  of  reasoning  to  its  utmost  limits. 
For  as  Mr.  Faber  proves,  we  may  even  go  on  the 
one  side  to  the  awful  length  of  concluding,  that  God 
is  effectively  the  author  of  sin,  and  that  virtue  and 
vice  are  mere  names,”  &c. 

To  this  section  we  may  subjoin  a  few  remarks, 

1.  The  consent  of  all  great  and  good  men  in  all 
ages  of  the  Church,  that  God  does  not  by  a  positive 
efficiency,  move  the  hearts  of  men  to  sin,  is  a  strong 


SECTION  X. 


102 

% 

presumption,  thr-t  this  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible, 
and  that  there  is  something  in  this  sacred  volume 
that  cannot  be  easily  reconciled  to  this  idea.  And  what 
is  this  but  such  solemn  declarations  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  these,  ‘‘Let  no  man  w  hen  he  is  tempted,  say, 
1  am  tempted  of  God,”  &c.  “All  that  is  in  the  world, 
the  lust  of  the  flesh,  the  lust  of  the  eyes,  and  the  pride 
of  life,  is  not  of  the  Father.”  “This  wisdom  cometh 
not  from  above,  but  is  earthly,  sensual,  devilish. ” 

2.  The  failure  of  the  attempts  of  Divines  in  past 
ages,  to  account  for  the  introduction  of  moral  evil 
upon  philosophical  principles,  does  by  no  means  prove 
the  truth  of  this  new  theory. — The  speculations  of 
Calvin,  President  Edwards  and  others,  on  this  sub¬ 
ject,  it  will  not  be  pretended,  ought  to  satisfy  the 
philosopher.— But  it  is  believed,  that  the  Christian 
ought  to  be  satisfied  with  such  light  as  the  Scriptures 
impart,  and  not  to  attempt  to  explain  on  principles 
of  mere  abstract  reasoning,  what  is  not  revealed  and 
is  above  our  comprehension.  Here  the  reasonings  of 
men  may  do  much  hurt,*  good  they  never  do. 

3.  As  in  all  past  ages,  the  Church  of  God  has  un¬ 
derstood  these  texts,  which  speak  of  God’s  hardening 
Use  heart  and  blinding  the  minds  of  sinners,  &c.  as 
relating  to  his  providential  disposal  of  events,  so  it 
is  in  an  high  degree  certain  that  this  will  be  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Church  in  general  in  all  future  ages.— 
As  to  the  pious  and  godly,  who  are  not  seduced  by 
attachment  to  some  favorite  philosophical  theory, 
they  will  always  find  enough  in  their  Bible  to  keep 
them  right  in  this  point.  And  as  to  such  as  make  no 
pretensions  to  vital  godliness,  and  even  deists,  they, 
in  general,  are  kept  aloof  from  this  mistake  by  a  kind 
of  natural  horror,  at  the  idea  of  God’s  working  di¬ 
rectly  on  their  hearts,  and  moving  them  to  all  the 
crimes  they  commit. 

Mon.  Denon,  in  his  account  of  Buonaparte’s  ex¬ 
pedition  in  Egypt,  relates  the  following  anecdote. — * 
An  Arab  hoy  about  fourteen  years  of  age,  was  de¬ 
tected  in  theft  in  the  French  camp,  and  brought  im- 


SECTION  X. 


103 


mediately  to  General  Desaix  for  trial.  “Who  excit¬ 
ed  you  to  this  criminal  deed,”  says  the  General. 
The  instant  reply  of  the  lad,  was,  “God  moved 
me  to  do  it?”  The  general  for  a  moment  seemed  to 
be  struck  dumb,  with  a  kind  of  pity  and  horror;  but 
presently  exclaims,  “Wretch!  let  him  go,”  as  if  one, 
who  could  utter  such  a  sentiment,  was  too  ignorant 
or  infatuated  to  be  made  an  object  of  criminal  justice. 
1  do  not  offer  this  as  an  argument,but  as  an  instance  of 
the  fact,  that  there  generally  is,  even  in  wicked  men, 
something  that  is  shocked  at  the  idea,  that  the  one 
true  God  does  move  men,  by  a  direct  operation  on 
the  heart,  to  sin,  and  that  this  will  operate  to  prevent 
their  falling  into  the  mistake. 


CONCLUSION. 


If  all  that  lias  been  stated  in  this  Essay  in  refutation 
of  the  new  principle  examined,  did  no  way  concern 
the  interests  of  vital  piety,  evangelical  truth,  sound 
or  healing  doctrine,  our  time,  we  concede,  must 
have  been  poorly  applied.  If  the  vehemence  of  my 
zeal  in  any  point  exceeds  due  bounds,  it  is  in  disgust 
against  that  spirit  of  controversy,  which  would 
sacrifice  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church  of  God,  to 
what  is  of  no  more  importance  to  the  salvation  of 
sinners,  than  the  breadth  of  a  Jewish  philactery. 
But  by  the  view  of  the  subject  which  we  have  at¬ 
tempted  to  defend,  we  conceive  the  following  inter¬ 
esting  advantages  are  gained. 

l.  The  purity  and  simplicity  of  the  Gospel  of 
Christ  is  hereby  preserved. 

This  simplicity  consists  essentially  in  two  tilings. 
First,  in  preserving  unmixed  and  unsophisticated, 
those  ideas  and  views  of  divine  things,  which  are 
revealed  in  the  holy  scriptures.  If  these  undergo 
any  shade  of  addition  or  alteration,  so  far  the 
gospel  is  corrupted.  In  preaching  the  gospel,  its 
truths  ought  to  be  held  up  to  view,  and  caused  to 
flow  forth,  pure  as  the  waters  oflife  from  the  throne 
of  God  and  the  lamb.  Iri  this  case  they  become  a 
tree  of  life,  whose  leaves  are  for  the  healing  of  the 
nations.  But  alas!  though  the  visage  of  eternal 
truth,  when  first  she  descended  from  on  high,  was 


CONCLUSION. 


105 


clothed  in  perfect  radiant  light,  yet  how  is  it  de¬ 
formed  by  the  disgusting  embraces  of  fanaticism, 
sectarianism,  or  the  dogmas  of  a  proud,  self-suffi¬ 
cient  philosophy.  Nor  is  it  one  of  the  least  distor¬ 
tions  of  her  fair  form,  to  speak  of  God  as  the 
direct  efficient  cause,  working  in  ungodly  men  all 
their  abominable  lusts, — teaching  that  neither  the 
devil,  nor  any  motives  or  second  causes,  can  pos¬ 
sess  a  power  under  the  providence  of  God  to  do  this, 
2.  But  not  only  does  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel 
consist,  in  preserving  unmixed  its  infinitely  precious 
and  holy  truths,  but  in  the  language  and  style  in 
which  we  speak  of  these  things.  We  are  indeed  not 
to  cherish  any  superstitious  attachment  to  mere 
words  and  phrases,  as  though  there  was  a  wisdom 
and  sanctity  in  them,  entirely  independent  of  those 
ideas,  of  which  they  are  the  symbols;  yet  that  there 
is  a  choice  of  words  and  expressions  even  in  the 
transaction  of  secular  affairs,  no  considerate  man 
will  deny.  May  not  principles  and  plain  facts,  be 
discoursed  of  in  language  obscure,  uninteresting, 
and  unconciliating?  Nay,  is  not  the  nature  of  lan¬ 
guage  such,  as  that  by  a  little  variation,  men  may 
breathe  into  it  their  own  unhallowed  feelings  and 
passions?  So  dark  is  the  mind  of  fallen  man,  and 
opposed  is  his  nature  to  what  is  perfectly  holy,  pure, 
and  divine,  that  the  doctrines  of  Christ  cannot 
well  pass  through  his  lips  in  a  new  dress,  with¬ 
out  contracting  defilement,  as  the  most  limpid 
stream  will  assume  a  tincture  of  those  strata,  over 
which  it  flows.-— But  from  all  these  defects,  the 
language  of  the  inspired  volume  is  in  the  highest 
degree  exempted. — For  holy  men  of  old  spake  as 
they  w7ere  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  he  taught 
them  all  as  he  did  Solomon,  to  seek  out  acceptable 
words, — words  of  truth  and  soberness, — words  in 
the  best  manner  adapted  to  promote  the  great  end  of 
a  divine  revelation. — A  material  departure  from  the 
language  of  inspiration  in  speaking  of  divine  things, 
tends  to  introduce  incorrect  views  of  those  things. 


!  06 


CONCLUSION. 


And  if  any  one  lias  any  thoughts  on  religion,  which  . 
will  not  bear  a  scripture  dress,  they  are  to  be  sus¬ 
pected  as  fallacious. — Now  in  preserving  the  sim¬ 
plicity  of  the  gospel,  its  style  and  manner  of  ex¬ 
pression  is  to  be  preserved  as  far  as  can  be. — St.  Paul 
inveighs  against  ail  mere  words  of  man’s  wisdom, 
and  declares  be  spake  and  taught  in  the  words 
which  the  spirit  of  God  dictated.  “And  I,  breth¬ 
ren,  when  I  came  to  you,  came  not  with  excellency 
of  speech,  or  of  wisdom,  declaring  unto  you  the 
testimony  of  God.  And  my  speech  and  my  preach¬ 
ing  was  not  with  enticing  words  of  man’s  wisdom. 
Now  we  have  received  not  the  spirit  of  the  world,  but 
the  spirit  which  is  of  God;  that  we  might  know  the 
things  that  are  freely  given  us  of  God.  Which 
things  also  we  speak,  not  in  the  words  which  man’s 
wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth: 
comparing  spiritual  things  with  spiritual.”  Now  to 
speak  of  God  as  the  spirit  which  worketh  all  wicked¬ 
ness  in  men, — to  represent  him  as  standing  by  them 
and  moving  them  to  rebel,  to  blaspheme,  to  oppress, 
persecute,  and  murder, — to  declare  that  the  Devil 
has  no  power  in  any  way  to  stir  up,  or  put  wicked¬ 
ness  into  the  hearts  of  sinners, — that  even  the  most 
powerful  second  causes,  or  temptations,  or  allure¬ 
ments  to  pride  and  wickedness,  can  avail  nothing. 
For  man  can  no  more  work  wickedness  than  holi¬ 
ness,  except  he  he  inwardly  and  directly  moved  by 
the  power  of  God.  if  this  is  not  a  departure  from 
the  style  of  scripture,  J  know  not  what  could  be. — . 
And  to  hold  up  these  sentiments  to  view,  a  great 
part  of  what  is  said  of  the  power  of  the  Devil  and 
other  tempters  and  temptations,  is  a  very  inconven¬ 
ient  style. 

2.  We  avoid  one  great  occasion  of  stirring  up  the 
hearts  of  men  to  speak  reproachfully  of  the  ways  of 
God  and  the  ministry  of  his  word. — The  native  en¬ 
mity  of  the  human  heart  against  God  and  divine 
truth  is  sufficiently  great.  We  need  take  no  unne¬ 
cessary  methods  to  awaken  it  into  impious  and  bias- 


CONCLUSION". 


a  or 


phemous  activity. — But  this  appears  to  be  the.  case 
with  some,  who  1  would  not  say,  seem  to  have  a 
greater  zeal  to  make  God  the  author  of  all  wicked¬ 
ness,  than  all  piety  and  holiness. — If  a  man  will 
publicly  teach, — that  when  the  scriptures  speak  of 
God’s  hardening  the  heart  of  sinners,  and  blinding 
their  minds,  &c. — that  this  is  not  a  special,  judicial 
act,  punishing  them  for  former  sins;  that  it  does 
not  commonly  relate  to  some  peculiarly  guilty  and 
obstinate  persons,  or  cities,  or  nations;  but  that 
these  expressions  are  to  be  equally  applied  to  God’s 
dealing  with  all  sinners,  of  all  ages  and  descrip¬ 
tions, — that  he  does  not  harden  and  blind  them  by 
giving  them  up  to  the  power  of  their  own  lusts,  the 
dominion  of  Satan,  &c.  hut  stands  by  them,  and 
working  directly  on  their  hearts,  moves  them  to 
every  crime  they  commit. — A  man  that  teaches  in 
this  manner,  must  expect  that  censure  and  opposi¬ 
tion  should  follow  him  wherever  he  goes. — He  may 
deem  it  persecution,  hut  among  his  persecutors  and 
such  as  would  have  been  so,  had  they  lived  in  his 
day,  he  must  reckon  the  mass  of  good  men  in  Chris¬ 
tendom  now  on  the  stage,  and  the  pious  ami  godly 
of  all  past  ages.  A  great  deal  of  the  opposition  and 
outrage  against  some  preachers  in  New  England, 
has  been  excited  by  exhibiting  for  the  pure  gospel, 
a  series  of  unprofitable  human  speculations,  f  have 
no  idea  that  the  great  and  soul  saving  doctrines  of 
repentance  towards  God,  and  faith  towards  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  will  ever  be  enforced  by  pressing 
on  sinners  this  new  idea  of  divine  efficiency. — This, 
and  various  other  refinements ,  are  more  calculated 
to  excite  in  men  a  suspicion  of  their  accountability, 
extinguish  a  sense  of  remorse  for  sin,  and  to  induce 
a  state  of  incurable  moral  torpor  and  insensibility, 
than  to  arouse  them  to  a  sense  of  guilt  and  danger, 
and  cause  them  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come. — 
Least  of  all  can  i  conceive,  that  this  view7  of  divine 
agency  is  a  good  qualification  in  one,  who  goes  to 
proclaim  the  word  of  life  to  the  benighted  heathen. 


108 


CONCLUSION. 


What  judicious  and  sober  Christian,  would  be  willing 
to  contribute  his  money  to  support  a  missionary,  to 
go  and  testify  to  the  pagan  world  that  the  God  of 
Christians  has,  for  wise  reasons,  not  only  permitted 
the  fall  of  man  and  all  his  consequent  wickedness, 
which  is  true;  but  more  than  this,  that  he  works 
in  men,  by  a  direct  influence  on  the  heart,  all  the 
abominations  which  have,  heretofore,  been  attributed 
to  the  De\il?  Who  can  imagine,  that  pagans  are  to 
be  converted  by  such  ministrations  as  these? 

The  ltev.  James  Trail,  in  an  address  to  the  Car¬ 
lisle  Auxiliary  Missionary  Society,  speaking  of  the 
awfully  degraded  moral  state  of  the  Hindoos,  ob¬ 
served,  “It  is  a  common  practice  with  them,  to  rid 
themselves  of  all  present  remorse  and  future  respon¬ 
sibility,  by  directly  referring  their  profligate  prac¬ 
tices  to  the  suggestions  of  the  Deity  himself. — Re¬ 
peatedly  have  1  observed  the  operation  of  their  dead¬ 
ly  principles.  “What  could  1  do?— -How  could  I 
help  it? — God  put  it  into  my  mind,”— -I  have  again 
and  again  heard  urged,  by  these  benighted  people,  as 
an  excuse  for  their  delinquences.” — What  could  a 
missionary  of  these  modern  notions  of  divine  effi¬ 
ciency  do  with  such  a  people?  Would  they  be  able 
to  follow  him  through  the  whole  system  of  wire 
drawn  metaphysics,  to  prove,  that  though  God  be 
the  immediate  author  of  all  our  most  abominable 
lusts,  yet  this  does  not  at  all  militate' against  re¬ 
sponsibility,  or  the  criminality  of  such  exercises?  I 
fear  such  a  missionary  would  be  a  miserable  witness 
for  God. 

5.  Another  important  point  gained  is,  we  avoid 
running  the  Scriptures  into  a  plain  and  irreconcil-' 
able  contr  adiction. 

One  passage  introduces  the  Spirit  of  Inspira¬ 
tion  as  saying,  “I  form  the  light  and  create  dark¬ 
ness:  I  make  peace  and  create  evil:  I  the  Lord  do 
all  these  things.”  Isai.  xlv,  7.  Another  passage 
affirms,  “All  that  is  in  the  world,  the  lust  of  the 
flesh,  the  lust  of  the  eyes,  and  the  pride  of  life,  is 


CONCLUSION. 


109 


not  of  the  Father.”  Another  queries,  “Is  there 
evil  in  the  city  and  the  Lord  hath  not  done  it?” 
Again  another,  speaking  of  the  corrupt  passions 
and  abominable  lusts  of  men,  avers,  “This  wis¬ 
dom  descendeth  not  from  above,  but  is  earthly,  sen¬ 
sual,  devilish.”  Jam.  iii,  15.  Here  is  a  most  pal¬ 
pable  contradiction  among  the  inspired  writers,  if 
moral  good  and  evil  are  both  alike  the  effect  of  an 
inward  divine  operation  on  the  heart.  But  by  the 
views  of  the  subject  which  we  recommend,  this  diffi¬ 
culty  is  easily  avoided. 

The  first  text,  and  all  of  a  similar  complexion, 
are  to  be  understood  of  an  outward  providential 
disposal.  The  last,  of  a  direct  positive  operation 
on  the  heart.  In  the  first  of  these  ways,  moral  evil 
comes  from  God;  but  never  in  the  latter. — We  con¬ 
ceive  this  seeming  contradiction  in  the  Scriptures 
can  in  no  other  way  fairly  be  disposed  of.  If  so,  a 
point  of  great  interest  is  gained. 

4.  Wc  reserve  to  ourselves  a  method  of  explain¬ 
ing  this  awful  dispensation  of  Jehovah,  hardening 
the  hearts  of  men,  sending  them  strong  delusion, 
&c.  by  which  the  judgment  and  conscience  of  the 
sinner  is  most  easily  gained  and  his  objections 
silenced. 

The  native  opposition  of  the  human  heart,  ever  has 
been,  and  ever  will  be,  active  and  ingenious  in  its 
reasoning  against  the  most  pure  and  sin-humbling 
truths  of  the  Gospel.  And  it  ever  will  be  the  duty 
of  the  friend  of  Jesus  to  repel  and  refute  these  objec¬ 
tions.  But  there  is  a  right  way,  and  a  wrong  way,  to 
answer  objections,  as  well  as  to  prove  and  illustrate 
evangelical  truth. — In  regard  to  those,  who  admit  the 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  all  their  cavils  are 
to  be  met  with  arguments  deducible  from  this  infal¬ 
lible  guide. 

To  quit  this  ground  and  to  aim  to  subdue  our  antag¬ 
onist  by  the  power  of  mere  abstract  reasoning,  is  as 
great  a  folly  as  for  a  general  of  an  army  unneces- 
lft 


110 


CONCLUSION. 


sarily  to  quit  a  strong  redoubt,  and  to  meet  a  power¬ 
ful  enemy  in  the  open  field. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  divine  conduct,  that  more 
commonly  provokes  the  cavils  of  wicked  men,  than 
God’s  being  said  to  harden  the  heart,  to  blind  the 
eyes,  &c.  But  if  we  adhere  closely  to  such  Scriptur¬ 
al  views  of  the  subject  as  we  contend  for,  it  is  com¬ 
paratively  an  easy  matter  to  deal  with  the  objector. 

This,  as  we  have  already  observed,  is  a  special 
dispensation  of  God.  It  is,  as  the  Scriptures  repre¬ 
sent  it,  a  punishment  for  former  disobedience.  In 
this  light  Calvin,  and  all  the  most  distinguished  prot- 
estant  divines  have  considered  it. — Calvin,  and  ac¬ 
cording  to  him  Augustine  considered,  the  original  de¬ 
pravity  of  all  men,  as  apenalevii.  It  was  the  punish¬ 
ment  of  Adam,  for  his  first  act  of  disobedience; 
And  there  is  nothing  in  this  more  difficult  to  reconcile 
to  the  justice  and  goodness  of  God,  than  that  chil¬ 
dren  should  now  suffer  in  their  moral  character,  and 
be  exposed  to  divine  judgments  for  their  parent’s  sins; 
an  event  which  every  moment  happens  in  the  Provi¬ 
dence  of  the  most  High. — It  is  certain,  the  children 
of  pagans  inherit  all  their  father’s  ignorance,  super¬ 
stition  and  impiety.  This  is  as  difficult  for  me  to  ex¬ 
plain,  as  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  should  be  curs¬ 
ed  with  depraved  hearts  for  his  disobedience. 

Now  that  God  should  harden  the  heart  of  those 
who  have  hated  knowledge  and  would  none  of  his 
reproof;  that  lie  should  give  them  up  to  the  delusions 
they  have  chosen;  is  so  plain  an  act  of  justice,  that 
even  bold  transgressors  cannot  well  object  against  it. 
Besides,  what  according  to  Scripture  and  plain  fact 
are  the  ordinary  means  by  which  sinners  in  the  Prov¬ 
idence  of  God  are  hardened?  Are  they  not  such  as 
These: — His  great  love  and  bounty,  in  bestowing  on 
men  worldly  prosperity,  riches  and  honors;  defer¬ 
ring  the  punishment  of  their  sins,  and  with  much 
long-suffering  giving  them  space  to  repent.  Fre¬ 
quently  laying  aside  the  rod,  and  removing  the  judg¬ 
ments,  with  which  he  had  begun  to  correct  them,  as 


CONCLUSION. 


Ill 


in  the  case  of  Pharoah,  who  when  h^  saw  there  was 
respite,  he  hardened  his  heart  yet  ifiore. — Sending 
his  prophets  and  ministers  to  tell  them  their  errors 
and  mistakes  in  religion,  and  solemnly  and  affection¬ 
ately  to  call  them  to  repentance, by  which  their  enmity 
and  rage  are  provoked,  as  was  the  case  in  regard  to  the 
leaders  of  Israel,  when  Christ  preached  to  them. 

But  are  not  all  these  acts  of  great  mercy  and 
kindness?  Shall  the  sinner’s  eye  be  evil,  because  God 
is  thus  good,  even  to  him.  If  the  sinner  is  harden  ¬ 
ed  by  such  means,  it  is  perfectly  evident  he  can  have 
no  pretence  to  find  fault  with  his  Maker? 

He  must  admit  he  is  under  infinite  obligation  to 
praise  God  for  those  very  means  by  which  he  is  har¬ 
dened.  For  they  are  not  only  acts  of  mercy  in  them¬ 
selves,  but  they  present  the  divine  character  to  view 
in  an  amiable  light,  and  arc  powerful  arguments  to 
produce  repentance.  It  is  true  indeed  that  God  har¬ 
dens  men’s  hearts  by  giving  them  up  to  the  entice¬ 
ments  of  wicked  companions,  the  sophistry  of  false 
teachers,  and  the  influence  of  the  devil.-— But  if  this 
be  a  judgment  upon  them  for  their  refusing  to  he 
guided  by  the  word  and  Spirit  of  God,  their  love  of 
the  company  of  sinners,  and  their  predilection  for  er¬ 
ror  and  falsehood,  who  can  with  any  shadow  of  rea¬ 
son  impeach  the  justice  of  it? — But  docs  not  he  de¬ 
spoil  himself  of  all  this  armor  to  silence  the  caviller 
and  vindicate  the  ways  of  God,  who  lays  out  of  the 
question  the  idea  of  hardening  being  a  special  act  of 
providence,  and  denies  the  power  of  all  second  causes 
and  instruments  to  excite  the  wills  of  men  to  evil?— 
This  man  we  conceive  quits  plain  Scripture  ground, 
and  goes  to  meet  the  enemy  in  the  strength  of  his 
own  metaphysical  armor.  All  he  can  do  is  to  talk 
of  the  abstract  nature  of  moral  agency,  human  liber¬ 
ty,  virtue  and  vice  consisting  in  mere  exercise  and  not 
in  its  cause,  &c.  The  great  leader  of  the  darkness  of 
this  world  was  never  yet  much  terrified  and  driven 
out  of  the  field  by  such  a  mode  of  attack. 


112 


CONCLUSION. 


But  says  one,  who  is  fascinated  by  the  fine  polish 
of  this  metaphysical  panoply,  you  have  not  yet  done 
with  the  objector.  If  you  have,  he  has  not  done  with 
you,  and  you  may  yet  need  the  aid  of  the  weapons  you 
so  lightly  esteem?  By  no  means,  the  cause  which  can¬ 
not  he  defended  on  plain  Scripture  ground,  we  believe 
God  never  intended  should  be  defended. — We  know 
very  well,  the  sinner,  though  foiled  by  the  blow  just 
now  given,  may  rise  again  and  with  vehemence  urge, 
Why  did  God  originally  give  me  an  heart  that  should 
be  capable  of  being  hardened  in  the  way  you  have  stat¬ 
ed;  or  why  did  he  not  exert  his  omnipotent  power  and 
grace  to  soften  my  heart  into  repentance  under  these 
dispensations  of  love?  But  do  the  Scriptures  here 
abandon  us,  and  suggest  no  reply. — If  they  suggest 
a  reply,  it  is  certainly  a  true  one,  and  it  is  the  best 
that  can  be  given,  and  we  can  have  no  occasion  to  go 
for  help  to  the  most  illustrious  champion  of  philo¬ 
sophical  warfare.  And  happily  for  the  Christian,  St. 
Paul  was  assailed  by  this  very  objection,  and  I  con¬ 
ceive  I  am  bound  to  believe  he  took  the  best  method 
to  repel  it.  And  what  was  it?  It  was  indeed  a  sum¬ 
mary  one,  but  none  more  pungent  and  powerful 
could  be  devised;  he  pointed  the  objector  to  the 
infinite  Jehovah  as  an  absolute  and  holy  sovereign, 
who  hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy,  and 
whom  he  will  he  hardeneth!  And  suggests  whether 
the  sovereign  Lord  and  owner  of  all  things,  has  not 
as  much  right  to  dispose  of  the  objects  of  his  crea¬ 
tion,  as  the  potter  has  to  form  his  clay  into  such 
vessels  as  pleases  him!  “Hath  not  the  potter  power 
over  the  clay  of  the  same  lump,  to  make  one  vessel 
unto  honor  and  another  unto  dishonor?” 

If  the  caviller  is  tempted  to  take  the  last  step  of 
audacious  impiety,  and  impeach  the  justice  of  his 
Maker  in  the  awful  retributions  of  sin,  and  say, 
“Why  doth  he  yet  find  fault,  who  hath  resisted  his 
will,”  still  the  Scriptures  stand  by  us  and  tell  us  what 
to  say.  “NTav,  but  who  art  thou,  O  man,  that  repliest 
against  God?  Shall  the  thing  formed  say  unto  him 


CONCLUSION* 


113 


that  formed  it,  Why  hast  thou  made  me  thus.’’  If 
this  plain,  solemn,  appeal  to  the  understanding  and 
conscience  does  not  silence  the  voice  of  objection, 
nothing  will  do  it?  He  who  imagines  he  can  do  bet¬ 
ter  by  his  abstract  reasoning  than  Paul  has  done, 
will  find  himself  miserably  deceived.  It  would  flat¬ 
ter  the  pride  of  a  presumptuous  opposer  of  the  sove¬ 
reignty  of  God,  to  suggest  that  Paul  treats  him  with 
too  little  ceremony,  and  to  deign  to  take  him  on  his 
own  ground  iti  a  train  of  labored  deduction,  but  it 
would  probably  only  confirm  him  in  his  impiety. 

He  that  knows  that  God  does  a  certain  thing,  and 
is  not  satisfied  that  it  is  just,  is  not  to  be  reasoned 
with  any  further. — For  God’s  doing  it  is  the  highest 
possible  proof  of  its  wisdom  and  rectitude*  So 
thought  the  Psalmist,  when  he  exclaimed,  “I  was 
dumb,  I  opened  not  my  mouth,  because  thou,  Lord, 
didst  it.”  Thus  we  see  that  there  is  nothing  which 
any  boasted  philosophical  theory  can  do,  but  the 
Scriptures  can  do  it  a  great  deal  better. 

We  shall  now  put  a  period  to  our  labors  in  a  few' 
words.  We  cannot  pretend  that  any  thing  like 
complete  justice  is  done  to  the  subject.  A  con¬ 
sciousness  of  the  want  of  ability,  a  pressure  of  family 
afflictions  and  cares,  and  professional  duties,  forbad 
every  anticipation  of  that  kind. 

We  are  conscious  of  having  aimed  at  nothing  hut 
a  correct  statement  and  iilucidatioii  of  evangelical 
truth,  and  to  free  it  from  the  embraces  of  a  beguil¬ 
ing  and  injurious  philosophy.  If  any  thing  we  have 
said,  shall  tend  to  produce  this  effect,  and  to  exalt 
and  magnify  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
and  to  persuade  men  that  the  best  philosophy,  the 
most  precious  wisdom,  is  the  sincere  milk  of  the 
w  ord  of  God  received  into  a  good  and  honest  heart, 
we  shall  be  amply  rewarded. 

Should  any  one  object  to  the  metaphysical  discus¬ 
sions  contained  in  this  volume  and  attempt  by  ab¬ 
stract  reasonings  to  prove  them  incorrect,  1  shall 
take  no  notice  of  it.  [have  not  introduced  them  to 
*10 


114 


CONCLUSION* 


establish  any  point,  except  this,  that  by  them  no 
point  in  divinity  can  be  established,  so  as  to  command 
any  high  degree  of  confidence.  But  should  any 
one  prove  by  plain  arguments,  drawn  from  the  word 
of  God,  that  when  James  says  of  vicious  and  impious 
exercises,  “This  wisdom  descendeth  not  from  above, 
but  is  earthly,  sensual,  devilish;”  and  of  good 
exercises,  “But  the  wisdom  that  is  from  above 
is  first  pure,  then  peaceable,  &c.”  he  means  that  sin 
and  holiness  come  both  alike  from  a  direct  divine 
influence  on  the  heart  of  men,  I  shall  be  bound  to 
reply  or  confess  my  error.  But  nothing  but  proving 
this  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  shall  ever  be 
considered  as  worthy  of  any  notice. 


APPENDIX, 

(Containing  the  Sermon  alluded  to  on  p.  Id.) 

MODERN  PHILOSOPHICAL  MIXTURES,  DEGRADING 
THE  CHARACTER,  AND  DEFEATING  THE  MORAL 
INFLUENCE  OF  THE  GOSPEL,  DETECTED. 

Col.  ii,  8. 

Beware  lest  any  man  spoil  you  through  philosophy. 

In  these  words  the  Apostle  has  nothing  to  do  with 
natural  philosophy,  any  farther  than  it  overleaps  its 
proper  bounds,  and  purposely  deviates  from  its 
own  path,  to  arm  itself  against  true  theology.  It  is 
moral  philosophers  whose  systems  are  so  pernicious. — < 
Of  these  there  are  three  general  classes;  pagan  phi¬ 
losophers,  who  in  the  midst  of  universal  darkness 
sought  in  vain  to  find  out  God;  infidel  philosophers, 
whose  great  endeavor  is  to  extinguish  the  light  of  rev¬ 
elation,  and  restore  the  ancient  empire  of  spiritual  ig¬ 
norance  and  wickedness;  and  Christian  philosophers, 
who  labor  with  vast  ingenuity  and  mighty  zeal,  so  to 
pare  down  and  fashion  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  as  that  it 
shall  harmonize  with  their  self-invented  systems.  In 
this  discourse,  our  principal  business  will  not  be  with 
philosophy,  considered  as  an  open  enemy,  but  as  a 
treacherous  friend. --For,  since  the  Christian  era?  this 
splendid  form  has  not  only  arrayed  itself  in  open  hos¬ 
tility  against  evangelical  truth,  but  it  has  endeavored  to 
incorporate  itself  with  it,  and  extend  its  triumphs  under 
a  name  so  truly  glorious.  In  this  way  immense  injury 
has  been  done  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  by  some  oi  his 
professed  followers.  For  ages  the  church  languished 
under  the  evils  brought  upon  it  by  the  philosophical 
spirit  of  Origen. — Of  the  celebrated  Dr.  Cudworth  it 
is  said,  “his  attachment  to  the  platonic  philosophy  has 
thrown  an  air  of  mysticism  over  some  of  his  metaphys¬ 
ical  opinions;  and  his  doctrine  of  the  plastic  nature  is 
supposed  by  Bayle  to  have  given  great  advantage  to  the 


116 


APPENDIX. 


atheists,”*  Philosophy  consisting  of  theological  and 
moral  opinions,  which  depraved  men  have  struck  out 
for  themselves,  independent  of  the  teachings  of  the 
word  and  spirit  of  God,  is  no  less  to  be  dreaded  wheth¬ 
er  it  come  in  the  character  of  a  friend  or  foe.  Though 
it  usurp  the  name  of  Christian  truth,  still  it  retains  its 
destructive  nature.  The  nature  of  things  does  not 
change  with  mere  names.  It  is  philosophy  in  the  hands 
of  Christians,  by  which  we  are  most  likely  to  be  seduced. 
Against  an  open  enemy  we  should  be  more  on  our  guard. 

There  is  no  reason  to  question  the  fact,  that  in  all 
Christian  countries,  the  philosophical  notions  of  multi¬ 
tudes  constitute  one  of  the  chief  obstacles  to  their  be¬ 
lief  of  some  of  the  most  important  principles  of  reveal¬ 
ed  religion. 

Our  first  duty  will  therefore  be  to  exhibit  marks  by 
which  this  spirit  may  be  detected  among  the  professed 
friends  of  the  gospel — Our  second  will  be  to  state  rea¬ 
sons  why  we  should  avoid  it.  The  following  are  all  the 
indications  of  it,  we  shall  have  time  now  to  notice: 

1.  It  grounds  its  belief,  even  of  what  it  admits  to  be 
revealed  truth,  rather  upon  the  presumption  that  it  is 
demonstrable  by  mere  human  reason,  than  upon  simple 
divine  testimony. 

The  doctrines  of  the  gospel  are  to  be  received  as  true, 
because  God  has  declared  them  to  be  so — This  is  the 
highest  possible  evidence  we  can  have  of  the  truth  of 
any  proposition.  God  can  neither  lie  nor  deceive;  nor 
can  he  be  mistaken.  His  word,  therefore,  taken  in  its 
plain,  obvious  sense,  is  to  be  admitted  as  infallible  truth, 
though  it  overthrow  all  human  systems,  and  confound 
the  boasted  wisdom  of  man.  But  how  many  are  there, 
who  have  a  spirit  within  them  revolting  against  God’s 
testimony. 

Hence  so  much  cavil  against  the  mysteries  of  reve¬ 
lation;  so  much  hesitancy  and  doubt  on  the  ground  that 
the  doctrine  is  above  our  comprehension;  or  we  do  not 
see  how  its  harmony  with  other  acknowledged  truths 
can  be  made  out;  or  wherein  its  real  adaptedness  to  the 
purposes  of  piety  and  virtue  consists.  He  that  receives 
the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God,  receives  every  truth  it 
contains,  not  because  he  can  prove  it  by  an  appeal  to 
reason,  or  comprehend  it  in  all  its  extent  and  bearings^ 

*  N.  Eden.  Ency.  yol.  vii.  p.  323. 


APPENDIX. 


nr 


but  because  God  has  proclaimed  it  to  be  truth.  With 
this  ground  of  belief  he  is  perfectly  satisfied:  Nothing 
short  of  this  can  constitute  a  believer  in  revelation. 

He  that  will  believe  nothing  contained  in  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  to  be  true,  but  upon  the  principle  that  it  agrees 
with  his  own  antecedent  notions  of  the  character,  coun¬ 
sels  and  ways  of  God,  and  the  nature  of  virtue,  does  not 
believe  in  revelation  at  all.  The  Bible  is  not  his  guide, 
God  is  not  his  teacher.  Pie  may  be  a  philosopher,  but 
he  cannot  be  a  Christian. 

2.  Another  indication  of  this  philosophical  spirit,  is 
its  attempts  to  explain  Christian  doctrine  in  such  a  man¬ 
ner  that  a  world  lying  in  wickedness  shall  no  longer 
pretend  ip  discover  inconsistency  and  absurdity  in  the 
system.  To  a  truly  enlightened  mind,  an  upright  and 
holy  taste,  the  gospel  appears  to  be  not  only  the  power 
but  the  wisdom  of  God  to  salvation,  and  it  will,  when 
rightly  explained,  always  command  the  approbation  of 
such  a  taste.  If  it  appears  in  a  different  light  to  any  per¬ 
son,  the  error  is  in  his  own  mind.  To  set  things  right,  he 
must  experience  a  great  change  in  his  own  views  and 
temper.  But  the  wisdom  of  this  philosophy  is  to  bring 
the  Gospel  down  to  the  ideas  and  dispositions  of  men, 
untaught  by  the  Divine  Spirit.  Thus  a  strong  plea  is 
set  up  for  expunging  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  from 
our  faith,  because  unbelievers  pronounce  it  absurd  and 
incredible,  and  so  it  becomes  in  their  view  a  mighty 
obstacle  in  the  way  of  propagating  among  the  nations 
a  religion  of  perfect  wisdom  and  beneficence.  But  to 
succeed  in  this  attempt,  we  must  not  stop  at  this  doc¬ 
trine.  We  must  proceed  in  the  work  of  expunging  till 
not  one  essential  principle  of  the  gospel  is  left.  It 
must  be  made  what  it  is  not,  before  a  world  lying  in 
wickedness  would  cease  to  object  to  it  as  unreasona¬ 
ble.  By  natural  men,  men  unrenewed  in  the  spirit  and 
temper  of  their  minds,  no  view  of  religion  can  be  admit¬ 
ted  as  correct,  which  does  not  flatter  the  mistaken  no¬ 
tions,  which  they  have  imbibed  of  their  own  native 
goodness,  wisdom,  and  self-sufficiency.  They  have  no 
idea  of  Paul’s  meaning  when  he  says,  “If  any  man 
among  you  seemeth  to  be  wise  in  this  world,  let  him 
become  a  fool  that  he  may  be  wise.” — Those  of  all  men 
most  effectually  counteract  the  design  of  the  Christian 
revelation, who  undertake  toreformthe  Gospel, instead 


ns 


APPENDIX. 


of  reforming  the  corrupt  taste  and  errors  of  the  woricl. 
If  the  wisdom  of  this  world  is  foolishness  with  God, 
then  to  reduce  the  Gospel  to  their  view  is  to  turn  it 
into  a  system  of  folly. 

Dy  those  very  doctrines  which  the  natural  man  re¬ 
ceived!  not,  and  to  which  an  unconverted  world  has,  and 
always  will  most  object,  all  the  triumphs  of  the  Gospel 
over  the  Pagan  nations  have  been  achieved.  Has  the 
Arminian,  the  Arian,  or  Socinian  system,  any  thing  to 
boast  of,  compared  to  the  wonders  prodweed  by  the  Gos¬ 
pel  in  the  three  first  centuries,  before  any  considerable 
attempts  were  made  by  heretics  to  obliterate  from  the 
Christian  creed  the  doctrine  of  man’s  utter  depravity 
and  moral  impotence  and  of  a  triune  God? 

3.  Another  very  decisive  mark  of  this  spirit,  is  its  at¬ 
tempt  to  incorporate  with  the  Christian  system  such  no¬ 
tions  of  human  liberty  and  moral  agency,  as  flatter  the 
native  pride  and  self-sufficiency  of  the  human  heart,  and 
exclude  the  necessity  of  the  influence  of  the  Divine 
Spirit,  in  the  production  of  holy  exercises.  Who  can 
entertain  a  doubt,  whether  it  be  Christianity  or  philoso¬ 
phy,  that  pleads  for  a  self-determining  power  in  the 
will  of  man,  as  essential  to  the  existence  of  virtue  or 
vice;  and  insists  that  an  act  of  choice,  to  possess  a  mo¬ 
ral  nature,  must  arise  in  our  minds  independent  of  all 
previous  bias  to  such  a  choice;  yea,  independent  of  the 
influence  of  motives,  or  any  external  cause  whatever; 
that  such  a  choice  must  be  contingent,  or  absolutely 
disconnected  with  all  grounds  of  a  previous  certainty 
of  its  existence. 

Than  these,  no  speculations  ever  could  be  more  sub¬ 
versive  of  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  scriptures.  Such 
a  thing  is  a  denial  of  the  absolute  dominion  of  Jehovah 
over  the  exercises  and  actions  of  his  creatures.  It  gives 
to  man  an  entire  moral  independence  of  his  Maker,  so 
that  nothing  as  to  his  present  character  and  conduct,  or 
future  destination  can  be  decided  by  the  Divine  will  and 
counsel.  At  one  stroke  it  annihilates  all  the  predictions 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures;  for  these  relate  chiefly  to  the 
future  volitions,  actions,  designs  and  enterprises  of 
men:  but  if  they  were  utterly  contingent:  if  there  could 
be  no  previous  ground  of  their  certain  futurity,  how 
would  it  be  possible  they  should  be  fore- known,  or  fore-, 
told,  even  by  the  highest  possible  wisdom. 


APPENDIX. 


119 


It  tends  also  directly  to  atheism;  for,  if  those  impor¬ 
tant  events,  the  volitions  and  actions  of  men,  may  come 
into  existence,  without  any  cause,  ground  or  necessity 
of  existence,  why  may  not  other  things  do  so?  Why 
might  not  the  whole  creation  exist  thus  uncaused? 
Then  what  proof  have  we,  that  there  is  a  God? 

It  turns  man  in  upon  himself  as  self-sufficient  and 
having  no  resources  or  aids  to  virtue,  but  what  are  com¬ 
prised  in  his  own  free  will.  It  rejects  the  operations 
of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  the  production  of  human  virtue, 
as  unnecessary  and  impossible;  for  according  to  this 
theory,  if  we  were  moved  by  any  extrinsic  cause  what¬ 
ever,  to  will  or  to  do,  our  best  actions  could  not  partake 
of  the  nature  of  virtue. 

4.  This  philosophic  spirit  is  also  to  be  detected,  by 
a  disposition  to  introduce  into  the  creed  of  Christians, 
useless  refinements,  as  important  articles  of  theology. 

There  is  no  science,  which  is  not  capable  of  being 
carried,  by  ingenious  and  speculative  minds,  (o  a  refine¬ 
ment  of  knowledge  utterly  beyond  the  bounds  of  utility. 
It  is  so  in  regard  to  Divinity.  Set  out  from  what  point 
you  will,  and  you  may  proceed  in  drawing  consequen¬ 
ces,  first  from  some  important  truth,  and  then  from  con¬ 
sequences  themselves,  till  you  arrive  at  principles  and 
maxims,  as  inapplicable  to  the  purposes  of  human  life, 
duty,  and  happiness,  as  the  ancient  doctrine  of  substan¬ 
tial  forms.  The  objection  against  these  refinements, 
is  not  that  they  are  impossible;  they  may  be  true;  (for 
it  is  a  matter  of  no  importance  how  you  esteem  them, 
whether  realities  or  fictions,)  but  that  they  cannot  be 
applied  to  any  practical  purpose,  in  relation  to  our  duty 
or  happiness.  Suppose  all  to  be  true,  which  Mr.  Stew¬ 
art  and  other  metaphysical  writers  tell  us  of  the  incon¬ 
ceivable  velocity  of  thought,  and  of  the  vibrations  of  the 
human  will.  Let  it  be  conceded  that  it  is  impossible 
that  there  should  exist  at  the  same  instant  of  time,  in 
the  mind,  an  holy  and  a  sinful  exercise  or  desire;  yet 
this  is  a  refinement  of  knowledge,  that  can  be  of  no 
practical  use  to  a  Christian. 

Let  philosophers  talk,  and  write,  preach,  and  say 
what  they  will;  the  Christian  will  ever  think,  and  feel, 
and  pray,  and  act,  as  though  the  flesh  and  spirit  did  ac¬ 
tually  co-exist  in  his  soul,  and  war  against  each  other. 
So  I  have  no  doubt  Paul  thought  and  felt,  when  he 


ifio 


APPENDIX. 


said  to  the  Galatians,  “The  flesh  lusteth  against  the 
spirit,  and  the  spirit  against  the  flesh,  and  these  are 
contrary  one  to  the  other,  so  that  ye  cannot  do  the  things 
that  ye  would;5*  and  when  he  said  of  himself,  “I  find 
then  a  law,  that  when  I  woujd  do  good,  evil  is  present 
with  me.”  The  doctrine  that  the  will  is  a  pendulum, 
that  swings  with  infinite  rapidity,  and  that  as  oft  as  it 
vibrates,  the  Christian  changes  into  a  perfect  saint,  or 
perfect  sinner,  is  a  discovery,  with  which  I  presume 
this  great  apostle  was  never  honored. 

5.  Another  indication  of  this  philosophical  spirit,  is 
its  presumptuous  attempts  to  explain  what  God  has 
seen  fit  to  leave  covered  with  a  veil  of  impenetrable 
darkness.  Of  this  kind  there  are  subjects  innumerable; 
for  there  is  nothing  that  exists,  but  what  in  some  re¬ 
spects  is  a  mystery;  some  question,  relative  to  it  may  be 
started,  that  none  can  solve.  Indeed,  there  are  none 
of  the  counsels,  works,  or  dispensations  of  God,  that  wre 
can  trace  but  a  little  way,  before  we  are  lost  in  the  un¬ 
searchable  depths  of  his  wisdom  and  power.— Though 
this  sentiment  be  universally  admitted  in  words,  yet 
such  is  the  pride  and  inconsistency  of  man,  that  he  is 
amazingly  loath  to  make  it  a  practical  principle.  There 
are  some  points  as  untraceable,  as  any  thing  pertaining 
to  God,  in  regard  to  which  he  seems  to  say,  “I  will 
not  stoop  to  worship  a  being  I  cannot  comprehend.5* 
Among  these,  the  origin  and  cause  of  the  continuation  of 
moral  evil,  holds  a  conspicuous  place.  It  is  beyond  all 
question,  difficult  to  explain,  how  the  first  sinful  exer¬ 
cise  should  gain  existence  in  a  creature,  whose  previ¬ 
ous  state  of  mind  was  that  of  perfect  holiness.  Here 
philosophy  has  of  late  begun  to  soar  with  untrembling 
pinions.  It  comes  to  its  conclusion  by  a  short  course, 
where  it  fancies  no  deception  can  be  concealed. — “In 
such  a  mind  itself,  there  could  be  nothing  predisposing 
it  to  sin.  The  effect  must  be  produced  by  some  exter¬ 
nal  cause.  But  previous  to  the  existence  of  all  moral 
evil,  such  an  agency  must  be  an  holy  agency,  and  who 
should  this  be  but  God  himself.55  And  thus,  this  hith¬ 
erto  unrevealed  and  unsearchable  mystery  in  the  works 
and  ways  of  God,  is  boldly  resolved  into  the  immediate 
positive  Divine  efficiency,  working  inwardly  upon  the 
moral  powers  of  creatures,  and  moving  them  to  sift. 
To  be  sure  this  is  a  summary  mode  of  adjusting  this 


APPENDIX. 


121 


awful  question;  but  before  we  subscribe  to  it  as  on  ar¬ 
ticle  of  pure,  humble,  evangelical  piety,  we  beg  leave 
to  pause  and  inquire,  what  saith  the  Scripture?  If  it 
accord  with  this  infallible  rule,  it  must  be  admitted:— 
if  it  be  philosophy,  we  must  beware  of  it. 

In  regard  to  the  agency  or  influence,  by  which  all 
effects  in  the  natural  and  moral  world  are  produced,  the 
following  statement  seems  to  comprehend  the  sub¬ 
stance  of  the  light  which  the  Scriptures  afford. 

1.  They  abound  in  declarations  of  the  physical  agen¬ 
cy  of  God.  I3y  this  agency  all  things  were  originally 
created,  organized,  and  constituted  what  they  are,  in  all 
their  vast  variety;  and  by  it  they  are  now  upheld,  or 
preserved  in  their  different  natures,  properties,  powers, 
faculties,  relations,  order  and  succession;  and  by  it  they 
are  constantly  held  under  the  absolute  dominion  and 
government  of  Jehovah,  and  in  His  Providence  so  di¬ 
rected  and  managed  as  that  they  never  move  or  act,  but 
in  conformity  to  his  infinitely  wise  and  benevolent  de¬ 
signs. — To  this  physical  agency,  the  apostle  alludes  in 
these  words,  “For  in  Him  we  live,  move,  (or  are  moved,) 
and  have  our  being.” 

It  is  in  allusion  to  the  same  kind  of  agency,  God  is 
said  to  have  raised  up  Pharaoh  and  determined  and  gov¬ 
erned  all  his  designs  and  actions,  in  the  fulfilment  of 
his  own  wise  counsels.  In  the  following  passages  where 
the  expressions  are  very  strong,  and  in  all  similar  pas¬ 
sages,  no  other  kind  of  agency  seems  to  be  attributed 
to  Gcd.  “I  form  the  light  and  create  darkness;  I  make 
peace  and  create  evil.  I  the  Lord  do  all  these  things. ” 
“And  if  the  Prophet  be  deceived,  when  he  hath  spoken 
a  thing,  I  the  Lord  have  deceived  that  Prophet.”  “Why 
hast  thou  baldened  our  heart  from  thy  feai  ?”  “He  turn¬ 
ed  their  hearts  to  hate  his  people.” — In  regard  to  this 
kind  of  agency,  all  objects  in  the  universe  are  equally 
dependent.  The  largest  globe  and  the  smallest  atom, 
the  highest  seraph  and  the  meanest  insect,  the  most 
perfect  saint  and  the  vilest  sinner,  the  brightest  angel 
and  the  blackest  devil,  all  here  stand  upon  a  level — In 
God,  as  they  had  their  origin,  so  they  have  the  continu¬ 
ation  of  their  being. 

2.  In  the  same  Divine  volume  there  is  much  said  re¬ 
specting  a  moral  influence  or  agency.  The  object  of 
this  is  not  to  create  or  uphold  creatures  in  being,  but 
purely  to  operate  upon  their  moral  and  active  powers, 

n 


122 


APPENDIX. 


and  to  impel  them  to  think,  feel  and  act,  agreeably  to  the 
will  and  pleasure  of  the  agent,  who  exerts  this  kind  of 
influence. 

But  of  this  influence  there  are  two  grand  sources 
mentioned  in  the  Bible. 

The  first  is  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  pro¬ 
duction  of  holy  affections,  volitions  and  actions.  It  is  to 
His  operations  the  apostle  alludes, when  he  says  to  saints, 
“For  it  is  God  which  worketh  in  you,  both  to  will  and 
to  do  of  his  good  pleasure.” 

The  second  is  the  agency  of  Satan.  He  is  represent¬ 
ed  in  the  Divine  word  as  possessing  a  mighty  power 
over  the  mind  of  sinners.  He  is  said  to  work  in  the 
heart  of  the  children  of  disobedience,  and  to  lead  them 
captive  at  his  will.  He  is  styled  the  god  of  this  world, 
the  tempter,  kc.  Neither  the  personal  greatness  of  the 
devil,  nor  the  extent  and  limits  of  his  power  over  the 
minds  of  men,  can  be  precisely  ascertained. — We  may 
rest  assured,  as  the  Holy  Spirit  himself  exercises  no  in¬ 
fluence  inconsistent  with  the  moral  freedom  and  ac- 
countabilityof  man,soneither  is  Satan  permitted  to  do  it. 
Nor  has  he  ability  to  search  the  heart;  for,  this  is  God’s 
prerogative.  But  notwithstanding  all  necessary  limita¬ 
tions,  his  power  is  unquestionably  great,  as  he  holds  the 
whole  world  of  ungodly  men  under  his  influence.  By 
these  three  kinds  of  influence,  all  effects  are  produced, 
and  all  operations  are  carried  on,  that  transpire  either  in 
the  natural  or  moral  world.  It  is  a  matter  of  immense 
Importance  in  religion,  that  we  should  not  confound  one 
with  another;  that  we  should  not  attribute  to  the  physical 
agency  of  God  those  holy  exercises,  which  are  produc¬ 
ed  by  the  moral  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit;  nor 
ascribe  to  our  Maker  those  evil  exercises  in  sinners, 
which  the  Scriptures  place  to  the  account  of  the  god 
of  this  world.  The  Gospel  scheme  of  light  and  wisdom 
must  necessarily  he  obscured  and  perverted  by  such  a 
step.  We  may  be  led  not  only  to  speak  falsely  but  ir¬ 
reverently  of  God;  yea,  to  ascribe  to  his  internal  moral 
influence  on  the  minds  of  men  those  very  wicked  and 
abominable  suggestions  and  exercises,  which  the  whole 
Christian  world  i'©r  ages,  (if  we  except  a  few  bold  and 
daring  philosophic  spirits,)  have  been  in  the  habit  of 
ascribing  to  the  devil.  As  to  the  production  of  mill¬ 
ions  of  events,  effects  and  actions,  no  other  agency  is 


APPENDIX. 


123 


necessary  to  account  for  their  existence,  but  the  phys¬ 
ical  agency  of  God. 

You  choose  to  take  and  eat  the  orange,  that  is  placed 
within  your  reach;  to  this  action  what  influence  is  ne¬ 
cessary  more  than  the  natural  agency  of  God  in  uphold¬ 
ing  you  in  the  possession  of  the  different  powers  and 
properties  of  your  nature,  and  by  a  providential  dispo¬ 
sal  bringing  about  all  the  circumstances  necessary  to 
the  action.  Considering  what  your  taste  is,  the  nature 
of  the  fruit,  and  your  knowledge  of  its  agreeable  qual¬ 
ities,  and  other  things  leading  to  the  action,  it  natural¬ 
ly  follows  in  this  conjuncture  of  circumstances.  What 
occasion  is  there  to  superinduce  a  Divine  moral  influ¬ 
ence,  and  to  say  you  could  not  touch  the  fruit,  till  over 
and  above  all  this  natural  agency,  the  faculty  of  your 
will  was  moved  by  the  immediate  finger  of  God.  It  is 
neither  sound  philosophy  nor  Divinity,  to  have  recourse 
to  more  causes  than  are  necessary  to  explain  the  phe¬ 
nomena.  This  remark  is  applicable  to  an  endless  train 
of  human  actions. 

In  all  that  God  is  in  the  Bible  said  to  do,  in  the  pro¬ 
duction  of  moral  evil,  we  conceive  no  other  Divine  agen¬ 
cy  is  necessary,  or  is  intended,  than  the  natural  agen¬ 
cy  before  described.  In  proof  of  this  statement  we 
have  two  arguments  from  the  word  of  God  to  produce. 

First,  inspiration  positively  denies  that  sin,  error  and 
wickedness  proceed  from  a  Divine  moral  influence. 
What  else  can  be  the  natural  construction,  the  plain 
import  of  such  passages  as  these,  “For  God  is  not  the 
author  of  confusion,  but  of  peace  as  in  all  the  churches.” 
This  persuasion  cometh  not  of  Him  that  calleth  you.” 
Let  no  man  say  when  he  is  tempted,  I  am  tempted  of 
God;  for  God  cannot  be  tempted  of  evil,  neither  tempt- 
eth  he  any  man.”  “For  all  that  is  in  the  world,  the  lust 
of  the  flesh,  and  the  lust  of  the  eyes,  and  the  pride  of 
life,  is  not  of  the  Father,  but  is  of  the  world.” 

There  is  then,  notwithstanding  all  that  is  said  of 
God’s  hardening  the  heart,  creating  evil,  blinding  the 
eyes,  Sec.  a  sense  in  which  no  moral  evil  is  from  him. 
Here  is  a  distinction  between  good  and  evil  as  coming 
from  God,  and  doubtless  an  important  one.  Every 
thing  both  good  and  evil  is  from  God,  as  by  his  natural 
agency  he  upholds  and  governs  the  world  with  absolute 
sway.  But,  nothing  morally  evil  is  from  him,  as  work¬ 
ing  by  an  inward  moral  influence  on  the  minds  of  men, 


124 


APPENDIX. 


and  disposing  them  to  work  wickedness.  This  sense 
of  the  passages  will  be  confirmed  when  it  is  considered, 
that  these  evil  exercises  are  ascribed  to  quite  another 
cause.  And  secondly,  is  it  not  a  plain  fact  that  when 
sinners  are  spoken  of  as  about  to  do,  or  having  com¬ 
mitted  any  flagrant  acts  of  sin,  they  are  said  to  be  mov¬ 
ed  to  it  by  Satanic  influence.  When  Judas  formed  the 
resolution  to  betray  the  Lord  of  life,  it  is  said  Satan 
entered  into  him.  To  Ananias,  Peter  says,  “Why  hath 
Satan  filled  thine  heart  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost.” 

It  is  true,  it  was  in  the  Divine  counsel,  that  all  things 
respecting  Judas  and  Ananias  should  come  to  pass  as 
they  did.  But  between  purposing  that  a  thing  shall  have 
existence,  and  doing  that  thing,  there  is  in  respect  to 
God  an  infinitely  important  difference.  Did  God  pur¬ 
pose  the  existence  of  sin?  But  there  is  some  difference 
between  this  and  his  executing  this  purpose  by  commit¬ 
ting  sin  himself.  There  is  also  a  wide  difference  be¬ 
tween  doing  a  thing  and  the  manner  of  doing  it.  If 
you  say  God,  as  a  providential  event,  led  Ananias  to  lie 
to  the  Holy  Ghost,  still  there  will  be  a  wide  difference 
between  permitting  Satan  to  stir  up  in  him  a  disposi¬ 
tion  to  lie,  and  doing  this  himself  by  an  inward  moral 
influence.  To  say  this  influence  was  from  God,  is  to 
assert  what  was  false  in  fact,  and  to  confound  the  agen¬ 
cy  of  God  with  that  of  the  devil. 

As  a  providential  event  God  determined  that  the 
heart  of  Pharoah  should  be  hardened;  but  does  this 
warrant  us  to  say  God  stood  by  Pharoah,  and  moved 
him  by  an  inward  moral  influence  on  his  mind  to  diso¬ 
bey  his  order?  By  no  means;  to  me  the  inference  ap¬ 
pears  as  unjust  as  it  seems  bold  and  irreverent.  I  pre¬ 
sume,  my  hearers,  with  you  it  will  not  admit  of  a  ques¬ 
tion,  but  that,  if  St.  Peter  had  undertaken  to  inform  us, 
by  what  inward  moral  influence  Pharoah  was  moved  in 
his  rebellion  against  the  command  of  God,  he  would 
have  said,  it  was  the  same  malignant  spirit  by  which 
Ananias  was  moved. 

I  am  sensible  that  on  the  principles  of  influence  we 
have  staled,  philosophers  say  we  cannot  account  for  the 
introduction  of  sin  into  the  moral  world.— Be  it  so: 
which  is  most  becoming,  a  confession  of  ignorance  in 
regard  to  this  point;  or  to  say  when  the  angels  first 
sinned,  God  stood  by  them  and  moved  them  to  hatred 
and  rebellion? 


APPENDIX. 


125 


Does  the  word  of  God  thus  explain  it;  or  does  it 
leave  the  question  unanswered?  If  the  latter,  why  not 
leave  the  subject  where  the  Bible  leaves  it?  David  says, 
I  meddle  not  with  things  too  high  for  me; — what  it  this 
should  be  a  matter  too  high  for  us;  what  if  it  should 
be  among  those  secret  things  that  belong  to  God  and 
not  to  us?  Does  philosophy  put  on  a  self-sufficient 
smile,  as  though  there  was  nothing  here  to  puzzle  a 
wise  man?  “It  is  the  remark  of  an  eminent  person 
that  Divinity  consists  in  speaking  with  the  Scriptures 
and  going  no  further.” 

Or  to  come  clown  to  our  world;  when  Adam  first  sin¬ 
ned,  how  do  the  Scriptures  account  for  it?  Do  they  say 
that  God  by  an  internal  influence  moved  him  to  revolt? 
We  hear  nothing  of  this.  The  awful  event  is  ascribed 
to  Satanic  influence,  subtilty,  craft  and  malice;  and 
there  the  Scriptures  leave  the  matter.  Shall  we  say 
this  affair  was  never  understood  by  any  of  the  inspired 
writers?  That  the  Holy  Ghost  left  the  honor  of  bring¬ 
ing  truth  here  to  light  to  the  genius  of  modern  meta¬ 
physics?  Even  the  great  St.  Paul  seems  to  have  had 
no  idea  that  God  stood  by  Eve  and  moved  her  to  lust 
after  the  forbidden  fruit.  To  the  Corinthians,  he  says, 
“But  I  fear  lest  by  any  means  as  the  serpent  beguiled 
Eve  through  his  subtilty,  so  your  minds  should  be 
corrupted  from  the  simplicity  that  is  in  Christ.”  If 
the  notion  which  we  oppose  be  correct,  it  seems  as 
though  the  Scriptures  were  afraid  or  ashamed  to  own 
the  truth  in  relation  to  the  subject;  for  they  ascribe  the 
fall  of  man  to  Satanic  influence,  and  there  they  stop. 
The  same  charge  seems  also  to  lie  against  the  Almighty 
himself.  In  the  prophet,  He  says,  “O  Israel,  thou  hast 
destroyed  thyself;  but  in  Me  is  thy  help.”  But  if  it 
was  by  sinful  exercises  they  were  destroyed,  as  all  must 
admit,  and  by  holy  exercises  they  would  be  helped, and 
God  was  just  as  much  the  immediate,  cause  of  one  as 
the  other;  what  ground  for  this  distinction?  lie  was  as 
much  the  author  of  their  destruction  as  their  lie  1  p. 
Nor  was  their  ruin  a  whit  more  from  themselves  than 
their  recovery.  Help  and  destruction  were  both  alike 
from  God,  and  both  alike  from  themselves.  But  do  the 
Scriptures  thus  trifle  and  make  a  difference  where 
none  exists? 

But  will  it  be  said,  it  is  expressly  declared  that  God 
moved  David  to  number  Israel  and  Judah.  As  an 

#H 


126 


APPENDIX, 


event  in  Providence,  lie,  no  doubt,  determined  and 
brought  it  about.  But  did  he  stand  by  him  and  work 
inwardly  upon  his  heart  and  incline  him  to  this  sin. 
No,  the  devil  did  this;  for  in  another  place  we  read 
“And  Satan  stood  up  against  Israel  and  provoked  Da¬ 
vid  to  number  Israel.” — David  was  then  carried  away  by 
the  remains  of  his  own  pride  and  the  temptations  of  the 
devil.  If  God  works  inwardly  on  the  minds  of  sinners 
to  will  and  to  do  evil,  then  why  does  he  not  do  the  same 
in  regard  to  the  devil  himself. 

But  what  man  without  an  inward  horror  at  his  own 
temerity  could  come  forward  in  a  public  assembly  and 
say  that  God  stands  by  Satan  and  moves  him  to  all  his 
lies  and  murders.  This  would  be  infinitely  more  than 
Jesus  himself  presumed  to  say.  For  speaking  of  Sa¬ 
tan  he  goes  no  farther  than  this,  “When  he  speaketh  a 
lie,  he  speaketh  of  his  own;  for  he  is  a  liar  and  the  father 
of  it.”  The  devil  in  all  he  does  is  never  represented 
as  being  under  any  moral  influence  out  of  himself. 
To  represent  him,  or  wicked  men,  his  children,  to  be 
inwardly  moved  to  all  their  iniquities  and  abominations 
by  an  inward  Divine  influence;  if  this  is  gratifying  to 
the  pride  of  philosophy,  it  must  be  grating  to  the  ear 
of  piety. 

There  is  a  kind  of  natural  horror  in  all  men,  who 
believe  in  the  existence  of  God  (excepting  a  few  bold 
and  adventurous  philosophic  spirits)  at  the  idea  of 
God’s  standing  by  sinners  and  moving  them  to  sin.  If 
a  murderer  were  arraigned  before  the  tribunal  of  jus¬ 
tice,  and  it  were  there  declared  in  the  indictment,  that 
he  was  inwardly  moved  and  instigated  by  God  to  imbrue 
his  hands  in  his  neighbor’s  blood,  how  would  the  au¬ 
dience  be  surprised  and  shocked! — Nor  will  it  ever  be 
otherwise  while  the  fear  of  God  remains  on  earth. 

It  is  to  be  hoped  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine  we 
oppose,  will  not  charge  us  with  denying  the  govern¬ 
ment  and  providence  of  God,  because  we  do  not  hold 
that  God  stands  by  devils  and  sinners,  and  inwardly 
moves  them  to  all  the  crimes  they  commit.  We  hope 
they  will  not  arrogate  to  themselves  the  honors  of  be¬ 
ing  persecuted  for  Christ’s  sake,  because  their  doctrine 
may  meet  with  some  opposition.  Nor  ;er.  them  be  too 
confident-  that  it  is  either  zeal  for  God,  or  love  to  souls 
that  leads  them  to  advance  such  bold  sentiments,  and  to 
tell  us  in  their  discourses  and  prayers,  that  they  believe 


APPENDIX. 


127 


God  himself  to  be  that  spirit,  which  works  in  the  hearts 
of  the  children  of  disobedience. 

It  deserves  their  serious  consideration,  whether  they 
are  not  hereby  arming  sinners  with  still  greater  prej¬ 
udices  against  religion,  and  destroying  their  own  use¬ 
fulness,  It  is  to  no  purpose  to  say,  it  is  no  more  incon¬ 
sistent  with  the  moral  freedom  of  men  for  God  to 
work  in  sinners  unholy  exercises,  than  to  produce  in 
saints  such  as  are  truly  virtuous.  The  question  is  not 
what  God  can  do,  but  what  he  actually  does  perform. 
I  am  strongly  persuaded  the  view  of  scriptural  influ¬ 
ences,  we  have  exhibited  is  correct,  and  shall  add  no 
more  under  this  article,  than  my  solemn  protest  against 
that  philosophy,  which  declares  it  is  God,  who  works 
in  sinners  to  will  and  to  do  all  the  abominations  with 
which  they  are  ever  defiled. 

2.  In  the  next  place,  we  are  to  suggest  a  few  rea¬ 
sons,  why  we  should  beware  of  philosophy.  The  first 
is,  Christians  have  no  need  of  it.  They  are  blessed 
with  a  perfect  fulness  of  divine  wisdom  and  knowledge 
in  the  Scriptures;  a  light  able  to  make  them  wise  unto 
salvation,  and  to  fit  them  for  every  good  work;  and 
what  more  do  they  need? 

This  is  Paul’s  argument,  “In  whom  (Christ)  are  hid 
all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge;  and  this  I 
say  lest  any  man  should  beguile  you  with  enticing 
words.”  Surely,  Christians  may  apply  to  the  light  of 
revelation,  these  memorable  words  of  the  more  than  half 
infidel  Rousseau;  “That  philosophy  has  not  been  able 
to  do  any  thing,  which  religion  could  not  have  done 
better;  and  religion  has  done  much,  which  philosophy 
could  not  have  done  at  all.” 

Can  we  expect  any  philosopher  to  arise,  who  by  wis¬ 
dom  shall  furnish  us  with  more  just  and  sublime  con¬ 
ceptions  of  the  nature,  attributes  and  government  of  the 
Most  High;  a  more  perfect  system  of  moral  virtue,  or 
with  motives  and  sanctions  more  weighty  to  enforce 
the  practice  of  it;  or  with  a  new  and  better  way  to  ob* 
tain  the  pardon  of  sin,  peace  of  conscience,  and  eter¬ 
nal  life!  It  will  not  be  pretended.  What  need  then 
have  Christians  of  any  principles  rules  or  systems,  the 
product  of  mere  abstract  reason,  and  not  the  plain  dic¬ 
tate  of  the  word  of  God?  But  are  there  not  some 
questions  of  immense  importance,  which  revelation 
has  left  untouched?  Does  it  any  where  discover  to  us 


128 


APPENDIX, 


the  harmony  between  the  fore-knowledge  of  God  and 
human  liberty?  Does  it  clearly  define  the  nature  of 
moral  agency  and  the  grounds  of  moral  obligation?  It 
may  be  replied  without  fear  of  just  contradiction,  that 
no  man  was  ever  yet  more  persuaded  of  his  being  a 
moral  agent  and  accountable  to  God  for  all  the  volumes 
of  philosophy,  designed  to  explain  the  subject.  God 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  in  the  dispensations  of  his 
providence  treats  man  as  being  accountable.  He  him¬ 
self  is  conscious  of  his  own  liberty,  and  feels  responsi¬ 
ble.  And  as  to  every  thing  relating  to  the  subject 
more  than  this,  ages  of  abstract  discussion  have  left  it 
just  where  they  found  it.  Let  a  man  plunge  in  and 
wade  through  the  whole  ocean  of  learned  and  ingen¬ 
ious  speculations  in  relation  to  the  question,  and  he 
may  come  out  a  skeptic,  deny  all  accountability,  or  with 
Lord  Kaims  maintain  that  our  consciousness  of  liberty 
is  altogether  delusive.  But  he  will  not  obtain  any  great¬ 
er  sense  of  the  certainty,  the  propriety  and  justice  of  a 
judgment  to  come.— Just,  when  you  6ce  a  young  man 
begin  to  assume  the  airs  of  a  philosopher,  you  have 
reason  to  tremble  for  his  faith.  Not  that  faith  is  unrea¬ 
sonable,  but  that  the  wisdom  of  this  world  is  foolish¬ 
ness  with  God. 

We  have  so  much  boasted  of  our  reason,  and  been  so 
much  in  the  habit  of  deciding  every  thing  in  religion 
by  philosophy,  that  the  authority  of  the  Bible  is  in  a 
great  measure  lost*  If  we  do  not  return  to  this  light, 
as  the  sole  standard,  the  peculiar  and  essential  doc¬ 
trines  of  Christianity  can  no  longer  be  defended.  In 
our  controversy  with  Unitarians,  we  are  compelled  to 
take  this  ground  and  declare  we  can  stand  on  no  other. 
We  treat  their  opposition  of  science,  falsely  so  called, 
with  just  disdain.  Let  us  carry  this  principle  through. 
Let  us  act  in  the  same  manner  in  regard  to  every  oth¬ 
er  theological  discussion;  then  we  shall  be  consistent; 
then  Christianity  will  triumph.  It  was  by  an  appeal  to 
what  is  written  that  the  Lord  of  life  in  his  temptation, 
toiled  the  devil.  He  was  too  great  a  philosopher  to 
have  been  confounded  by  any  other  weapon. 

When  the  Christian  is  convinced  it  is  God  who 
speaks  in  the  word,  and  he  understands  what  he  says, 
there  is  an  end  to  inquiry. — The  next  thing  is  action. 
If  philosophy  here  interferes,  it  is  only  to  draw  a  veil 
over  the  meridian  sun,  to  perplex,  puzzle  and  delay. 


APPENDIX. 


129 


We  cannot  with  absolute  precision  fix  the  point, 
where  light  ends  and  darkness  begins;  but  of  nothing 
can  we  be  more  sure,  than,  that  there  is  an  essential 
distinction  between  them.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
evangelical  and  philosophical  preaching.  In  the  first 
the  business  of  the  preacher  is  to 

‘‘Negotiate  between  God  and  man” 

“ - • — - the  high  concerns, 

“ - of  judgment  and  of  mercy.” 

But  the  latter  indicates  a  mind  too  much  disposed  to 
exalt  and  amuse  itself  by  the  acuteness  and  beauty  of 
its  own  self-devised  theories  and  systems.  And  as  all 
preaching  carries  in  it  a  spirit  peculiar  to  itself,  so 
like  a  dry  and  scorching  wind,  it  evaporates  the  living 
power  of  religion.  *  It  is  a  stranger  to  the  sublime  and 
vigorous  impulses  of  that  charity  whose  only  luxury 
is  to  do  good.  _  It  mourns  not  over  the  moral  desola¬ 
tions  of  the  world;  nor  can  it  admit  the  sublime  con¬ 
ception,  that  the  pious  Watts  in  composing  a  hymn  for 
an  infant,  exhibited  a  greatness  that  outshines  all  the 
glory  of  the  proudest  mere  metaphysician. 

2.  If  any  thing  could  induce  a  truly  wise  man  to  be 
jealous  of  these  speculations  of  human  reason  on  di¬ 
vine  subjects,  one  would  think  the  shocking  absurdi¬ 
ties  and  abominable  errors,  into  which  those  have  run, 
who  have  boasted  most  of  philosophy,  must  do  it; — - 
who  have  asserted  that  the  works  of  creation  in  all 
their  glory  do  not  evince  that  the  hand  that  made  them 
is  divine!  or  that  they  originated  from  an  Almighty 
designing  cause! 

Who  have  asserted  that  the  distinction  between 
right  and  wrong,  virtue  and  vice  is  a  mere  fancy! 
Who  have  maintained  that  death  is  an  eternal  sleep! 
Who  have  asserted  that  self-murder,  fornication,  vain¬ 
glory  revenge,  8cc.  are  no  crimes?  Infidel  philosophers. 
Who  have  denied  the  existence  of  the  material  world, 
and  affirmed  that  it  had  no  being,  except  in  our  internal 
perceptions  and  feelings!  Who,  agreeably  to  this 
theory, have  implicitly  maintained  that  man  had  no  body; 
nay,  that  he  had  no  soul,  excepting  in  idea  and  volition! 
Who  have  asserted  the  divine  benignity  was  so  great  as 
to  render  it  impossible  for  the  Deity  to  inflict  the  pun¬ 
ishment,  denounced  in  revelation  against  incorrigible 
offenders!  Who  have  maintained  that  it  is  God  himself, 
that  worketh  immediately  in  the  hearts  of  the  children 


430 


APPENDIX. 


of  disobedience,  and  moveth  them  to  all  the  blasphemy, 
treachery,  cruelty,  war  and  murder,  that  ever  disgrac¬ 
ed  and  afflicted  the  world?  Christian  philosophers. 
Let  us  then  beware  of  both. 

3.  Let  it  also  be  considered  that  no  important  point 
in  Divinity  has  ever  been  discovered,  determined  and 
enforced  by  men  unenlightened  by  the  word  and  spirit 
of  God.  What  did  all  the  philosophers  do,  antecedent 
to  the  coming  of  Christ?  The  world  by  wisdom  knew 
not  God.  In  the  benign  splendors  of  Christian  light, 
their  most  perfect  systems  were  turned  into  folly. 
Nothing  respecting  the  moral  character  of  God  and 
true  holiness  was  right  as  taught  by  them.  And  are 
the  speculations  of  modern  infidel  wise  men,  more  con¬ 
genial  with  the  doctrines  and  spirit  of  the  Gospel? 
And  what  valuable  discoveries  have  Christian  philoso¬ 
phers  to  boast  of,  that  were  not  derived  from  the 
Bible?  What  more  has  the  whole  tribe  of  philosophers 
done,  from  age  to  age,  than  to  prove  each  other’s  sys¬ 
tems  false,  as  they  have  arisen  in  succession? 

Some  seem  disposed,  so  to  mould  and  explain  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrine,  as  that  it  shall  correspond  with  their  ab¬ 
stract  theories  of  the  human  mind.  But  were  anv 
speculations  evermore  uncertain?  How  many  volumes 
have  been  written  to  explain  the  manner  in  which  the 
mind  conceives  of  external  objects?  This  subject  has 
been  a  matter  of  controversy  from  the  earliest  periods 
of  literature. 

But  Dr.  Reid  has  lately  proved  the  whole  train  of 
philosophers  and  metaphysicians,  for  four  thousand 
years  or  more,  including,  even  Clarke,  Locke  and 
Newton,  to  be  in  an  error; — yea,  to  have  employed 
themselves  all  this  time  to  explain  a  subject,  that  lies 
beyond  the  limits  of  human  knowledge,  and  about  which 
a  Locke  can  know  no  more  than  an  untutored  peasant.* 
In  respect  to  so  important  a  power  as  that  of  conscience, 
how  discordant  and  uncertain  are  the  opinions  of  the 
most  acute  writers?  Some  have  considered  it  as  an 
original,  distinct  faculty  of  the  mind,  and  have  given  it 
the  appellation  of  the  moral  sense.  Among  these  are 
Shaftsbury,  Hutcheson,  Reid,  See.  Others  have  assert¬ 
ed  it  is  not  a  distinct  faculty,  but  that  the  operation  of 


*  Stewart’s  Elem.  Phil,  Hum.  Mind,  pp,  86 — 88. 


APPENDIX. 


131 


various  powers  of  understanding  and  will  were  con¬ 
cerned  in  every  moral  conclusion,  and  that  the  sense  of 
right  and  wrong  which  we  experience  is  the  effect  of 
the  joint  influence  of  these  powers  upon  the  general 
principle  of  self-love.  In  regard  to  the  ground  of  praise 
and  blame  there  is  the  same  discrepancy  of  opinion. 
One  predicates  it  altogether  of  taste  or  propensity, and 
affirms  that  the  exercises  of  our  will  have  neither  vir¬ 
tue  nor  vice  in  them,  any  more  than  the  motions  of  our 
body.  Others  again  affirm  that  nothing  is  capable  of 
deserving  praise  or  blame  but  these  very  same  exercis¬ 
es  of  the  will.  Some  have  considered  ail  the  emotions 
of  the  mind.  love  and  hatred,  hope  and  despair,  joy  and 
sorrow,  as  nothing  but  exercises  of  the  will;  (though 
the  absurdity  of  this  be  somewhat  apparent)  while  ot  h¬ 
ers  have  considered  the  affections  and  will  as  very  dis¬ 
tinct  powers. 

But  if  they  can  decide  nothing  by  their  abstract  rea¬ 
soning,  respecting  such  important  principles  of  the  hu¬ 
man  mind,  to  what  does  all  their  wisdom  amount?  What 
reliance  is  to  be  placed  upon  it?  They  find  man  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures  assumed  as  an  accountable  agent;  that 
his  present  conduct  will  decide  his  future  and  eternal 
destination;  and  happy  if  their  philosophy  does  not  en¬ 
feeble  the  power  of  these  essential  doctrines;  add  any 
thing  to  their  energy  it  cannot. 

4.  The  speculations  of  men  on  divine  subjects, 
whose  light  is  derived  from  themselves,  and  not  from 
the  Scriptures,  can  never  be  incorporated  with  the 
Gospel  and  become  one  system  with  it.  Here  the 
pantheon  of  pagan  deities  and  the  pantheon  of  philoso¬ 
phy  stand  upon  a  level;  as  before  the  coming  of  Christ, 
philosophers  never  did  any  thing  towards  introducing 
the  light  of  the  Gospel,  so  they  can  now  do  nothing  to 
improve  it.  Graft  their ''speculations  upon  it  and  you 
corrupt  it.  It  is  of  such  a  peculiar  heavenly  nature  and 
spirit,  that  it  must  ever  stand  by  itself.  The  tints  of 
the  rose  of  Sharon,  like  that  which  adorns  the  fields 
of  nature  must  be  hurt  by  the  most  exquisite  touches 
of  a  mere  human  pencil. 

To  open,  explain,  prove  and  apply  Christian  doctrine 
in  St.  Paul’s  way,  ‘‘comparing  spiritual  things  with 
spiritual,”  and  to  trace  the  analogy  of  nature  and  reve¬ 
lation,  may  afford  ample  scope  to  the  Christian,  poet, 
orator,  critic  and  divine;  but  for  them  to  attempt  to 


132 


APPENDIX. 


improve  the  light  actually  contained  in  the  sacred  vol¬ 
ume  by  theories  of  their  own  devising — this  is  for 
night  to  offer  its  aid  to  increase  the  splendors  of  the 
day. 

5.  We  shall  only  add  that  mere  philosophy  never 
yet  produced  a  single  truly  amiable  and  virtuous  char¬ 
acter.  There  is  in  all  ages,  a  pride  in  its  nature  which 
renders  it  incompatible  with  the  production  of  such 
fruit.  It  is  an  observation  of  Dr.  Johnson,  that  no  such 
thing  can  be  found  in  all  the  history  and  poetry  of  the 
ancient  Gentile  world.  This  is  also  true  of  the  writings 
of  mere  philosophers  of  modern  times. 

They  are  all  of  one  spirit;  they  approximate  no 
nearer  to  God  and  true  holiness,  while  they  follow  any 
other  but  Christian  light.  The  Christian  philosopher 
may  indeed  be  both  holy  and  humble,  if  he  hath  not 
suffered  his  philosophy  to  eat  out  the  bowels  of  evan¬ 
gelical  truth;— but  no  part  of  his  holiness  or  humility 
is  to  be  ascribed  to  his  philosophy.  The  less  he'philos- 
ophizes,  and  the  more  he  sits  at  the  feet  of  Jesus,  with 
an  entire  dependence,  and  learns  of  him,  the  better. 
Take  heed  then  and  beware  of  philosophy,  even  in  its 
most  specious  form.  Satan  will  tell  you,  as  he  did  Eve, 
it  is  good  to  make  one  wise;  but  his  object  is  the  same, 
by  pride  to  lead  you  to  revolt  from  divine  teachings. 
Let  the  Bible  then  be  to  your  understanding  what  the 
sun  is  to  the  day,  all  its  light.  As  the  stars  are  utterly 
lost  in  his  superior  splendors,  so  should  we  consider 
all  mere  philosophy  as  lost  in  the  effulgence  of  revela¬ 
tion.  Let  this  be  a  lamp  unto  your  feet,  and  a  light 
unto  your  path,  and  you  will  go  right  where  philoso- 
phe  rs  and  metaphysicians  may  mistake  and  die. 

This  revelation  r  eeds  no  other  commentator  to  make 
it  a  savor  of  life  unto  life,  but  the  inward  teachings  Of 
the  Divine  Spirit,  and  the  light  which  one  part  reflects 
upon  another.  May  we  alt  be  blessed  with  that  dis¬ 
cernment,  which  he  gives.  Then  as  to  our  hearts  the 
darkness  will  be  passed,  and  the  true  light  will  shine. 

And  now  unto  the  King,  Eternal,  Immortal  and  In¬ 
visible,  the  only  wise  God;  be  glory  and  honor,  power 
and  empire,  world  without  end.  Amen. 

THE  END. 

Erratum. — In  p.  38,  1. 10,  for  plication  read  application . 


% 


DATE  due 


CA  ''LOAD 


"KiNTeo  tN 


